I’m not saying the conception of the self is objective (i don’t believe it is)
Don’t beleive in a soul, eh?
My bad dude, amazing what a difference 180 degrees and a goofy smiley face make.
Heavens no.
OK, I suppose this jibes fairly well with what I’ve been butting heads with nigraham about
Biologic function is the example of a law that can be denied, but not defied.
Objective means, not the bias of a subjectt. it doesn’t mean that the person who know the truth is not a subject. for a subject is a subject. . the appreciation that a subject is a subject is indeed a good example of an objective truth. something that a subject knows, that is not ‘decided’ by bias.the truth might only be knowable by you because of certain things about you, the knowing subject, like the fact that you can think at all, but it would be true for anyone other than you,(i.e. it is not biased to you, thinkers know it) and we can say that without knowing particulars about them. i.e. it is not biased. it is objective
This is my understanding, perhaps other people can give superior formal definitions which I eagerly await.
I think you are presupposing a duality between subject and observer there, which would be considered a bias. Right?
Sure, there are laws at play. Believe in them or not, you shall obey.
Well, not that it pisses me off, but why construct more laws for yourself? You know, the ones that can be denied, and defied!
can you phrase that a different way? I can’t comprehend it. I’ll struggle along with what you wrote…
There is a distinction (are you calling it a duality?) between the two things that are different from each other. (one is the concept of subject the other the concept of objective). I don’t see how thus far any bias is introduced…
That’s liking blaming Newton for constructing the three laws of motion. There isn’t any construction, only discovery.
Yes, the distinction between subject and observer. That is a bias on your part. The buddhists tell us the duality is an illusion (dzogchen).
So, let’s say the buddhists’ empirical observation on the true nature of our consciousness is bull. Even if the act of observation is a concession to the objectivity of the observer, I don’t really remember saying I’m against the existence of laws, just one’s that are meaningless.
I would agree the law of an objective observer is deniable, but not logically defiable. Just like gravity. But this still doesn’t help you case about ethics, because that is an example of a “law” that is deniable and defiable.
Sorry Charlie, that’s apples and oranges.
err. no it isnt.
its a formal distinction between two actually different things.
you say one of them is real. the other is not real. you assert they are not the same. hence it is performing a contradiction to chide me from considering them as two different things as if it was just my petty bias, and not down to the fact that they are two different things( which you have conceded!).
I’m saying we are both wrong, I’m just willing to admit my perceptual limitations.
well, i grant you you are precisely half right in at least this statement (if not others.)
Deep, man. Deep
Wall different forms of laws they still follow the classic cause/effect. They all fall in line. You’ve already admitted to biology and the existence of involuntary impulses, you can see the orange, I don’t know why you won’t just eat it.
Because in calling something a law, the implication is that said “law” can’t be disobeyed without consequences. Besides being “wrong”, what is the consequence?
Here’s a thought I just came up with:
I think we agree!
Without omniscience, no one can be assured that their logical conclusions are going to remain the same as new considerations present themselves over time.
Therefore perfect logic is theoretically possible, yet practically impossible, because a consideration of everything simultaneously is necessary to deduce it.
That’s why I was arguing for polylogism earlier, because everbody’s collections of the totality of knowing varies, so the considerations towards their logic also vary.
No. In calling natural phenomena a “law” it means it cannot be disobeyed, hence why F still equals M*A and the urge still exists. Even by “softer” standards of law the obvious consequences are sterility, blindness, and death. (And I never its “wrong” to blind, sterilize, or kill yourself.)