Political Crossfire Forums

Kindred · Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject:

Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...

You are quite correct.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:20 am Post subject:

Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...

You are quite correct.

very few things are objective in reality sadly, however science amugnst others dose go out of its way to be as objective as possible.

Well scientists worth a damn at least.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:30 am Post subject:

Anywho can we get back to the justification of why rights require a second party?

Do no rights then exist in a vacume?

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Anywho can we get back to the justification of why rights require a second party?

Do no rights then exist in a vacume?

I can tell you why, but it may be more simple than you can accept...
Rights are like any form of relationship, like concepts, that find their meaning not in the abstract, but in the relationships we form around them. The last individual on the planet will have no use for rights, or for the concepts of freedom and justice. These ideas would lose their meaning entirely without someone to share them with. These are forms, standards if you prefer, that we use to work the details of our relationships out around, and in reference to.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject:

Fido wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Anywho can we get back to the justification of why rights require a second party?

Do no rights then exist in a vacume?

I can tell you why, but it may be more simple than you can accept...
Rights are like any form of relationship, like concepts, that find their meaning not in the abstract, but in the relationships we form around them. The last individual on the planet will have no use for rights, or for the concepts of freedom and justice. These ideas would lose their meaning entirely without someone to share them with. These are forms, standards if you prefer, that we use to work the details of our relationships out around, and in reference to.

Sorry to be obtuse, but what makes rights a relationship as oposed to any of the other possibilities such as an innate quality?

It's all very well saying 'rights are a relationship' but thats not a self justifing statment.

Kindred · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:48 am Post subject:

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Kindred wrote: Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...

You are quite correct.

very few things are objective in reality sadly, however science amugnst others dose go out of its way to be as objective as possible.

Well scientists worth a damn at least.

You are also correct

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5496 Location: Taxatraz

Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...
What if the observer is provably objective...a computer, for instance.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

Quote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Fido wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Anywho can we get back to the justification of why rights require a second party?

Do no rights then exist in a vacume?

I can tell you why, but it may be more simple than you can accept...
Rights are like any form of relationship, like concepts, that find their meaning not in the abstract, but in the relationships we form around them. The last individual on the planet will have no use for rights, or for the concepts of freedom and justice. These ideas would lose their meaning entirely without someone to share them with. These are forms, standards if you prefer, that we use to work the details of our relationships out around, and in reference to. -

-------------Everything we know of as an idea is a form that we relate around. If we spend our time trying to answer if the form of a circle is round we are not killing each other, but relating to each other through the medium of the form. Some forms, like religion or government or economies, or cultures are much more complex but they serve the same purpose, of giving us reference point through which we can relate rather than deny our relationship, -the end point of which is war, murder, or death. When we try to find the meaning of freedom and justice we are relating to people who feel these concepts are important, and these others, like ourselves are giving our lives meaning in the pursuit of the meaningful. Fido.....

Quote: Sorry to be obtuse, but what makes rights a relationship as oposed to any of the other possibilities such as an innate quality?

It's all very well saying 'rights are a relationship' but thats not a self justifing statment.

I am not saying that rights are a relationship, but that they are concepts, forms if you will, that we relate to each other through. Every shared concept is a form of relationship. Some relationships are very formal, and some less so; but I have not be able to discover any relationship that did not have some formality to it. If we understand this fact we can see the relationship within the form as the desirable quality to preserve while working on changing the form to better serve the relationship. Even when governments fail many people in their needs -they still give some within the framework through which they can relate, as people, to one another, and it is from these relationships, the human quality, that all resistance to change comes from. To change institutions it is necessary to change people, and to change people it is neceesary to change the nature of their relationships. Sorry about the messed up box above. out of time. bye.

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7609 Location: Tampa, FL

Aereus wrote: Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...
What if the observer is provably objective...a computer, for instance.
It is meaningless unless you observe it and interpret it...

Katsumoto · Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 2001 Location: Orygun

Gus wrote: Aereus wrote: Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...
What if the observer is provably objective...a computer, for instance.
It is meaningless unless you observe it and interpret it...

To say everything is subject to subjective interpretation is self contradictory. In making the very statement one is assuming it to be objective fact.

Besides, nothing says that your observer cannot observe, test, and theorize on the nature of objective reality. Science, Philosophy, and Spirituality are simply tools which allow us to move ever closer to finding a truly objective reality across all quadrants of human existance (physical-spiritual-cultural-environmental). To achieve that goal would be to touch the face of God--and probably end human existance as we know it....

...whoa.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

Katsumoto wrote: Gus wrote: Aereus wrote: Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...
What if the observer is provably objective...a computer, for instance.
It is meaningless unless you observe it and interpret it...

To say everything is subject to subjective interpretation is self contradictory. In making the very statement one is assuming it to be objective fact.

Besides, nothing says that your observer cannot observe, test, and theorize on the nature of objective reality. Science, Philosophy, and Spirituality are simply tools which allow us to move ever closer to finding a truly objective reality across all quadrants of human existance (physical-spiritual-cultural-environmental). To achieve that goal would be to touch the face of God--and probably end human existance as we know it....

...whoa.

Umm, who said "everything" is subjective externally to the observer?

Are you familiar with Hume's "induction problem"?

Katsumoto · Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 2001 Location: Orygun

The Impeacher wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Gus wrote: Aereus wrote: Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...
What if the observer is provably objective...a computer, for instance.
It is meaningless unless you observe it and interpret it...

To say everything is subject to subjective interpretation is self contradictory. In making the very statement one is assuming it to be objective fact.

Besides, nothing says that your observer cannot observe, test, and theorize on the nature of objective reality. Science, Philosophy, and Spirituality are simply tools which allow us to move ever closer to finding a truly objective reality across all quadrants of human existance (physical-spiritual-cultural-environmental). To achieve that goal would be to touch the face of God--and probably end human existance as we know it....

...whoa.

Umm, who said "everything" is subjective externally to the observer?

Are you familiar with Hume's "induction problem"?

No I'm not. Care to share?

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

This is a pretty good article about it. I had learned about this a couple of years ago and forgot, but I think this paragraph summarizes it pretty well:

Quote: Since we must use experience to inform us about the world, anytime I wish to reason about things I must essentially reason from my experience of what the world is like. For example when a person says that fire causes smoke, what he is really doing is examining his experience and finding that fire and smoke have always been conjoined. Whenever two events, states, or objects are conjoined in our experience, we tend to say that one causes the other. What Hume finds very interesting in this proposition is the fact that when the person sees this causal relation, there is in fact nothing that forces it to be the case. Technically, all the person can do is say "in my experience in the past, fire has always been conjoined with smoke". There is nothing inherent in the experiences that says that fire and smoke always will be together. In other words, there is no way to claim necessary connection. In essence when I make a causal claim what I am saying is:

In the past, x has been associated with y
Therefore, x will be associated with y in the future

It was kind of a big slap in the fact to logic as we know it. :lol:

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13580 Location: San Diego

[quote="Katsumoto"] Gus wrote: Aereus wrote: Gus wrote: Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...
What if the observer is provably objective...a computer, for instance.
It is meaningless unless you observe it and interpret it...

To say everything is subject to subjective interpretation is self contradictory. In making the very statement one is assuming it to be objective fact. [/url]

Not really if you accept the premise that human understanding and knowledge is dependent on human experience. (I accept this premise and reject a priori knowledge, but let's not get into this.)

Human experience is dependent upon a number of subjective factors. Hell, it's hard to logically establish that something even exists outside of our experience. Thanks, Descartes, for screwing with my mind.

[quote]Besides, nothing says that your observer cannot observe, test, and theorize on the nature of objective reality. Science, Philosophy, and Spirituality are simply tools which allow us to move ever closer to finding a truly objective reality across all quadrants of human existance (physical-spiritual-cultural-environmental). To achieve that goal would be to touch the face of God--and probably end human existance as we know it....[/url]

Or you can just accept that it's futile and impossible like I do!:lol: :lol:

Quote: ...whoa.

Whoa is right. :]

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

jawsome wrote: Quote: There is nothing inherent in the experiences that says that fire and smoke always will be together. In other words, there is no way to claim necessary connection.

It was kind of a big slap in the fact to logic as we know it. :lol:

Yes, the key being in the separation between the observation/experience of the "external fact," then our interpretation of the experience, and then again our reasoning about our interpretations of our experiences.

We've become quite removed from the objective reality at this point.

So when the skeptic points out the problems of observation and interpreation, its why data and large data sets that can be verified and repeated are so important to establishing "facts."

The kicker is all one can "objectvely" say anything about is about our observations, and hope that inducing/reasoning is an accurate reflection of the objective reality that we only indirectly perceive mentally.

Also, one can look into the "brain in a vat" arguments for more info.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:21 am Post subject:

The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: Quote: There is nothing inherent in the experiences that says that fire and smoke always will be together. In other words, there is no way to claim necessary connection.

It was kind of a big slap in the fact to logic as we know it. :lol:

Yes, the key being in the separation between the observation/experience of the "external fact," then our interpretation of the experience, and then again our reasoning about our interpretations of our experiences.

We've become quite removed from the objective reality at this point.

So when the skeptic points out the problems of observation and interpreation, its why data and large data sets that can be verified and repeated are so important to establishing "facts."

The kicker is all one can "objectvely" say anything about is about our observations, and hope that inducing/reasoning is an accurate reflection of the objective reality that we only indirectly perceive mentally.

Aye one has to accsept that inductive reasoning and causality as Hume correctly pointed out are assumptions. I just wish you woulnt use it in evey damn argument.

Quote:
Also, one can look into the "brain in a vat" arguments for more info.
Which Putnam nicked off Descartes and Locke (what do you expect for a guy with a girls name though). Meditations should be the first book anyone wanting to study philosophy should read. Its brillo.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:29 am Post subject:

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

No, in fact I never said anything of the sort. I said that it is a RELATIONSHIP between an agent, an action or state that the agent would like to do or become, and an obstacle that prevents it. That is most certainly self-evident.

Quote:
The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Huh? Are you having trouble following along? We are simply attempting to define a set of terms in a logically consistent manner, not "justify" anything.

Don't get pretencious, thats not an necessary statement.

What makes it a relationship, as oposed to an innate quality of life, or any of the other millions of possibilities.

How can property be an "innate quality of life"?
And how can it not, all im saying is that your defintion of rights needs futher justification

If life can be shown to proceed without property rights, and I have shown that it can and does, then the notion that it is an innate quality of life is shown to be false.
Well two points of note being important here,

Insofar as Human life and animal life arnt exaclty the same, and humans cannot survive succesfully without tools. It be a bit obtuse to start arguging what property was considering people will instantly reach for there dictionaries. But i'd say utilisation and ownership are linked in some way. However Im not taking the classical textbook defintion of what property that.

That is ton mon opion, property is a physical extension of the meta physical self. Your body for example is owned by you and thus 'property'.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote: Animals survive without property. And some don't Chimps for example have basic concepts of tools.

Huh? Using tools != property rights.

As above.

Quote:
Like many libertarians, you appear to be confusing possession with property. As I have demonstrated in numerous threads on here, the two are not the same thing.
And like many people your content with going strait to the 'ah hes a libertarian' argument. don't do it.

Also millions of threads or not, this is the current dicussion, and we all know the search function is **** at best.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote: Many human societies have flourished without property as well. Don't confuse the need to use the external environment with property rights in the external environment.
I think the essential problem here is that you think im simply taking the legalistic stance towards property. In essence ownship(allthough not nessisarly having to own it) is key to the ability to use tools as i've noted slighlty above.

That statement is just flat false. One need not own something to use it.

And again, lets not play the dictionary game of what property is. What would you define ownership as.

Quote:
Quote:
However this wasunt what I was getting at when i asked you, we can talk about property later, what im looking for is deeper justification than the unlogical 'self evident' for your principle of rights being transferal.

In English please.

Urrg.

Im asking for a nessisary logical defintion of why all rights are strictly transferal between one person and another, meaning that for rights to exist two sentient bodies must be in communication.

So far you've argued that you personally favor the defintion of rights you've chosen to take, this is not a analytic statment. It thus requires futher justification.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

thefranzkafkafront wrote: The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: Quote: There is nothing inherent in the experiences that says that fire and smoke always will be together. In other words, there is no way to claim necessary connection.

It was kind of a big slap in the fact to logic as we know it. :lol:

Yes, the key being in the separation between the observation/experience of the "external fact," then our interpretation of the experience, and then again our reasoning about our interpretations of our experiences.

We've become quite removed from the objective reality at this point.

So when the skeptic points out the problems of observation and interpreation, its why data and large data sets that can be verified and repeated are so important to establishing "facts."
The kicker is all one can "objectvely" say anything about is about our observations, and hope that inducing/reasoning is an accurate reflection of the objective reality that we only indirectly perceive mentally.

Aye one has to accsept that inductive reasoning and causality as Hume correctly pointed out are assumptions. I just wish you woulnt use it in evey damn argument.
Are you trying to say that Humes induction problem applies to Islam? You think Hume is arguing against reason and knowledge, and for faith?

Fat chance, boyo.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote:
Also, one can look into the "brain in a vat" arguments for more info.
Which Putnam nicked off Descartes and Locke (what do you expect for a guy with a girls name though). Meditations should be the first book anyone wanting to study philosophy should read. Its brillo.

Overrated in the end, but required reading for an intro to philosphy imho.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:04 am Post subject:

The Impeacher wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: Quote: There is nothing inherent in the experiences that says that fire and smoke always will be together. In other words, there is no way to claim necessary connection.

It was kind of a big slap in the fact to logic as we know it. :lol:

Yes, the key being in the separation between the observation/experience of the "external fact," then our interpretation of the experience, and then again our reasoning about our interpretations of our experiences.

We've become quite removed from the objective reality at this point.

So when the skeptic points out the problems of observation and interpreation, its why data and large data sets that can be verified and repeated are so important to establishing "facts."
The kicker is all one can "objectvely" say anything about is about our observations, and hope that inducing/reasoning is an accurate reflection of the objective reality that we only indirectly perceive mentally.

Aye one has to accsept that inductive reasoning and causality as Hume correctly pointed out are assumptions. I just wish you woulnt use it in evey damn argument.
Are you trying to say that Humes induction problem applies to Islam? You think Hume is arguing against reason and knowledge, and for faith?

Fat chance, boyo.

No my point is when your talking about simply emperical things, like who is the president of the U.S, or whats the capital of germany, it makes no sense to suddenly go into a debate about what truth is and whether existance let alone germany or the position of president exists.

When i talk about islam im just talking about scripture and theology, not the overal debate about whether relgion is a representation of truth, but thats not the point.

Hume did say that philosophical skeptisism should be left in the classroom.

Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote:
Also, one can look into the "brain in a vat" arguments for more info.
Which Putnam nicked off Descartes and Locke (what do you expect for a guy with a girls name though). Meditations should be the first book anyone wanting to study philosophy should read. Its brillo.

Overrated in the end, but required reading for an intro to philosphy imho.

No wai!

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

thefranzkafkafront wrote: The Impeacher wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: Quote: There is nothing inherent in the experiences that says that fire and smoke always will be together. In other words, there is no way to claim necessary connection.

It was kind of a big slap in the fact to logic as we know it. :lol:

Yes, the key being in the separation between the observation/experience of the "external fact," then our interpretation of the experience, and then again our reasoning about our interpretations of our experiences.

We've become quite removed from the objective reality at this point.

So when the skeptic points out the problems of observation and interpreation, its why data and large data sets that can be verified and repeated are so important to establishing "facts."
The kicker is all one can "objectvely" say anything about is about our observations, and hope that inducing/reasoning is an accurate reflection of the objective reality that we only indirectly perceive mentally.

Aye one has to accsept that inductive reasoning and causality as Hume correctly pointed out are assumptions. I just wish you woulnt use it in evey damn argument.
Are you trying to say that Humes induction problem applies to Islam? You think Hume is arguing against reason and knowledge, and for faith?

Fat chance, boyo.

No my point is when your talking about simply emperical things, like who is the president of the U.S, or whats the capital of germany, it makes no sense to suddenly go into a debate about what truth is and whether existance let alone germany or the position of president exists.

When i talk about islam im just talking about scripture and theology, not the overal debate about whether relgion is a representation of truth, but thats not the point.

Hume did say that philosophical skeptisism should be left in the classroom.

And when I talk about what is truth of the matter [ie, your viewpoint], I mean that in the sense of the Socratic pretense to knowledge. ie, what truth lies at the base of the claim. From pon what pillar does the argument stem?

The truth of faith is not completely worlds apart from the truth of rights, other than the significant fact that rights can be argued based upon experiences and accepted via an appeal to reason rather than an appeal to divine authority.

Thus one is the realm of reason and knowledge, the other resides on baseless unsupportable claims and beliefs. Says ye of little faith.

Quite relevant.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote:
Also, one can look into the "brain in a vat" arguments for more info.
Which Putnam nicked off Descartes and Locke (what do you expect for a guy with a girls name though). Meditations should be the first book anyone wanting to study philosophy should read. Its brillo.

Overrated in the end, but required reading for an intro to philosphy imho.

No wai!

I exist, therefore I think - I think in existence, and no "I" exists only because "I" realizes it. Life occurs before self-awareness, I'd call it a necessary condition for thinking.