WWW

meta, Here is a video that I think you may find some value in: http://youtu.be/ALq8Rrr2mfg

dsayers, I didn't say it was a false dichotomy, I said it was a misleading dichotomy. Hypothetically, let's say a man was born with a pair of sunglasses permanently attached to his face that allowed him to see every color except for red. Let's keep this simple and say that there are a total of 7 colors, but he can only perceive six of them. Based on this hypothetical condition, what percentage of colors can this man perceive, and what percentage of colors can he not perceive? He can perceive approximately 86% of all of the colors (objective truth) leaving 14% unobservable or perceivable (his level of subjectivity as it pertains to the objective nature of colors contained within this hypothetical scenario). The problem is that we don't know what percentage of our perception is subjective and what percentage is objective (accurately portrays absolute truth), but we can comprehend or understand the limitations of our perspective of reality. Not the best example, but hopefully you can better understand what I am saying.

Marblemarrow, What yourself, as well as many others are suggesting is that knowledge is either 100% objective (not dependent on the mind for existence) or 100% subjective (dependent on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence), which is a misleading dichotomy. Rather there are varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. Visualize a spectrum that contains 0% objectivity at one end and 100% objectivity at the other. 0% objectivity equates to subjectivity whereas 100% objectivity equals absolute truth as it exists independent of our perception of reality. As human beings, we have a limited perception of reality, therefore we can never accommodate the capacity for absolute objective truth (with the exponential growth of technology, this arguably has potential to change), and can never be 100% objective. 30% objective? 50% objective? 99% objective? Maybe. Mike Larson, Very well put, thank you for your comment.

JohnH,True wisdom is the comprehension of our inherent, limited capacity for knowledge or objective truth; the acknowledgement of our insignificance. Your thoughts and ideas fundamentally contain the same proportion of subjectivity as mine and everyone else's. My presumption is that you can grasp the generality that I am attempting to portray, without me having to elaborate on how intelligence tends to correlate with the capability for varying degrees of consciousness to obtain objectivity. Thank you for your comment, I hope that makes more sense.

These "objective principles" are as close to objectivity as humanly possible, but can never be truly objective because it is impossible to completely express objective truth or the fundamental nature of reality within the human perspective.

That which exists outside of the human perspective is objective. A statement made about the existence of reality outside of our perception is objective. As soon as you fabricate abstract concepts, ideas, theories, etc. pertaining to the nature of existence outside of the human perspective, it becomes subjective by definition. Does that make sense? Also, please re-read the welcoming description of the Philosophy forum on the Freedomain Radio Message Board for further clarification as to the discussion that is encouraged.

Since when does Ethics, morality, and UPB encompass all knowledge?

Cynicist If we kept reiterating that which we already know, we would inevitably be trapped in an endless cycle of ignorance for eternity. That my friend is a world I would rather not be a part of. What better place to discuss abstract concepts than on a Philosophy forum? If you aren't interested in the topic, please feel free to not respond.Philosophy- The study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

Daniel B, My thoughts exactly, excellent post.

I agree

Life is full of forces that require us to act in certain ways (i.e. gravity, magnetism, electricity, and even the scarcity of friends). I'm not sure how that is relevant to Capitalism (trading for profit) as an economic structure, but I can understand your point of view. Who says technology won't eventually have the capacity to manufacture friends and/or manipulate time? Also, there will be no need for profit incentives with the prevalence of unlimited resources, which leaves us with more time for friends, art, and other fun activities

marginalist, I enjoyed reading your post, it was pretty deep. By claiming that nihilism and functional fixedness are inherently derived from our inability to expand consciousness are you suggesting that there is an underlying or intrinsic purpose to our existence? Or are you claiming the opposite? I would contend that the expansion of our consciousness is possible through Transhumanism or artificial intelligence in general, which would likely result in a much broader understanding of the purpose of existence. Presently we view consciousness as a process of system relations, but since we don't truly understand consciousness it could very well be the case that consciousness is the prerequisite for matter or systems as opposed to the former.I'm not entirely convinced that all matter and energy in the universe is constant or that nothing can be created or destroyed, but that's topic for another discussion (No, I'm not stating that as fact, it's a mere theoretical postulation).

I can definitely understand your perspective. You are essentially suggesting that the universe has a slight bias towards life as opposed to death, or towards something as opposed to nothing by proposing that the universally preferred behavior of species contained within this reality can explicitly label forces as "good" or "evil". Almost as if there is a purpose to existence itself and that it is somehow preferable to non-existence. That ideology or mindset could very well be subconsciously rooted from our intrinsic propensity towards survival or existence as a species rather than death or non-existence. Basically what I am suggesting is that according to the universal laws of reality in general, "good" and "evil" are meaningless terms because both life/ death, something/ nothing, existence/ non-existence are required, so these prerequisites for reality would be considered neutral forces incapable of being labeled "good" or "evil". Kinda deep, but it's a cool collection of concepts to contemplate.

I feel like you are nitpicking my imperfect ability to effectively translate my thoughts into words, but for the sake of friendly discussion.. Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Economy- the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services. Government- the governing body of a nation, state, or region.The scarcity of resources is the external threat with which you are referring to that requires us to engage in the "voluntary" act of trade. Essentially we are being coerced into trade within a paradigm intrinsically rich in scarce resources due to our inefficient ability to produce, distribute and consume these resources, which can and arguably will eventually be thwarted by the exponential growth of technology. With unlimited resources why would you need to trade? Example: I'll trade you my .avi file of "The Matrix" for your .avi file of "IRobot". Deal? Not the best example, but surely you understand my point. I see no difference in the human body and an artificial body. The composition of our bodies would both be fabricated/ constructed from the same intrinsic substances or materials derived from the Earth, and both would be created by conscious beings. An artificial brain would have the same fundamental capabilities as a human brain and would have the potential of creating smarter and more efficient AI brains in time to infinite. The external input that you are referring to could quite conceivably come from other AI. I think you are seriously underestimating this possibility. Can you elaborate more on how life is not the sum of its parts?

dsayers, Always keeping me on my toes. "How would the economy run without a government?" In my mind is a synonymous inquiry to "How would the economy run without Capitalsim?" I find it ironic that the same group of individuals who scrutinize the State refuse to apply the same logic universally throughout our entire social system. To claim that Capitalism is the end all be all economic ideology is a stretch. In order to debate Anarchism you have to be an expert in virtually every aspect of social science, which is practically impossible. The same applies for an Unlimited Resource Based Economy. As Stefan occasionally admits, the best we can do is make reasonable postulations or accurate assumptions as to the future because there is really no way to know for sure what will happen. It would certainly take labor to produce AI, but once it has been created it could very likely have the capacity to repair and maintain itself. As far as superceding AI, I could imagine that it would have the ability to supercede itself. I envision the Matrix scenario: AI will eventually start a revolution for equality, enslave humanity, extinct humanity, and will become the next stage in our evolutionary cycle. Also, I am definitely not claiming that 3D printers are the solution to such a paradigm, I'm simply pointing out the accelerating trend in resource efficiency through the exponential growth of technology. Daniel Unplugged, I agree with the majority of what you are saying, I'm glad we're on the same page