6306 replies to this topic

[Thor Odinson]

[Ein]

Thank you~

[Thor Odinson]

No problem.

[Ein]

Or is it?

We'll find out in due time... Maybe.

[Lævateinn]

No such thing as subjectivity is bullshit

Taste of food, for example
I fucking love Tofu and I think it's the best thing ever
someone else may hate the taste or texture of tofu

Does it make one of our taste in food objectively better

Or I hate pink
Someone else loves pink

does it make pink objectively an attractive or ugly color

I can use the RGB values to show that pink is too much on the warmer side of the spectrum for my personal tastes

but whether or not it's a good or bad colour is purely subjective

The food you enjoy triggers your tastebuds to send impulses to the brain that are interpreted into an enjoyable taste. Same goes with colors and whatnot. It's considered to be subjective in the sense that we aren't technologically advanced enough to analyze people's brains and find out exactly what they would like or dislike. But that's a limitation on our abilities, and is not related to the true nature of why people like/dislike stuff.

Speaking as a physics major, I end up thinking of a lot of things as probabilistic (seeing as it's not just our limitations in math, it's our limitations in measurements that can be problematic) as opposed to deterministic, so I honestly don't think there's enough order for objectivity to exist...

but lets not go all philosophical in the picture thread ntg youre very pretty

True randomness can't exist. It makes no sense for any outcome to happen over any other possible outcome if there is no particular reason behind it. At the very least, you can have parallel universes to accommodate the results of what appear to be truly random occurrences. But as you said, it's our limitations in measurements that prevent us from discovering those outcomes.

[eclipse]

I can attempt to explain why I like tofu, but it doesn't mean it's THE answer to why I like it, neuron-wise.

[Ein]

I can attempt to explain why I like tofu, but it doesn't mean it's THE answer to why I like it, neuron-wise.

It's actually quite simple.

[Thor Odinson]

It is still subjective in that there is no universal standard of THIS COLOUR IS A GOOD COLOUR and THAT COLOUR IS A BAD COLOUR. The tastes are PERSONAL. I don't think you really get the concept of subjectivity. Not everyone's brains work the same way. That's what subjectivity is. My brain treats math like a piece of cake. Others treat math like it's hell on earth. When I say math is easy, it's subjective from my own point of view. It's not stuff that you can just say, 1+1=2, rabbits have fur. Either that or you are trying to create a uniform robot race with no variation, personality, and preferences. What a load of bull.

Sometimes I think you're a robot yourself what with you unable to see anyone else's viewpoints but your own as it's the only way you're programmed to think.

Edited by Luminescent Blade, 05 May 2012 - 01:36 AM.

[SeverIan]

There is no such thing as subjectivity. Everything can be explained mathematically. It's only our limitations in understanding mathematics that we treat some issues as being subjective.

What you said makes no sense to me (I have removed the latter quotes regarding infinite solutions - if they are relevant, feel free to refer to them). I wonder what you mean by subjectivity. Generally, I would think that if everything can be explained, and understood, mathematically, but people generally or always fail to understand mathematics enough, then that obviously shows that subjectivity exists by how you seem to define it.

In addition, while this is not always mathematical in nature, I would argue that a failure of understanding is sometimes the result of objectivity rather than subjectivity. In justice systems, objectivity tends to entail the attempt to cleave to a particular way of handling a particular situation, and to attempt normalcy and regularity whenever possible. Objectivity, in this field as in many others, avoids discretionary judgment. It may avoid consideration of particulars. Subjectivity is more prone to bias, but it can also be more understanding - not just in a sentimental way, but in a way that grasps the truth.

I don't really have any reason why anything could not be explained or understood mathematically. But explanation and understanding are not actually the whole of knowledge and experience, either. Leaving aside the question of math alone, if in order to show me the difference between two kinds of peppers and their spiciness, you gave me a poll of 500 consumers which indicated a substantial preference for one over the other, some sort of highly detailed mathematical representation of their respective spicinesses, pictures of both peppers, chemical explanations of the makeup of each pepper and what made each as spicy as it is, etc, I really doubt that any number of explanations could actually manage to resolve my preference for one pepper over the other as effectively as a taste test between the two peppers (provided, of course, that the first was not so hot as to burn out my ability to receive the second).

I do grant that, potentially, some sort of synthetics might eventually be produced that could replace these peppers in a taste test, but the crucial role of myself as the subject would remain.

Lol.

Edited by Jet Black Gunner, 05 May 2012 - 01:48 AM.

[Lævateinn]

It is still subjective in that there is no universal standard of THIS COLOUR IS A GOOD COLOUR and THAT COLOUR IS A BAD COLOUR. The tastes are PERSONAL. I don't think you really get the concept of subjectivity. Not everyone's brains work the same way. That's what subjectivity is. My brain treats math like a piece of cake. Others treat math like it's hell on earth. When I say math is easy, it's subjective from my own point of view. It's not stuff that you can just say, 1+1=2, rabbits have fur. Either that or you are trying to create a uniform robot race with no variation, personality, and preferences. What a load of bull.

Sometimes I think you're a robot yourself what with you unable to see anyone else's viewpoints but your own as it's the only way you're programmed to think.

In that case, our definitions of subjctivity seem to differ. If someone has a "subjective" opinion of something, I believe there must be a very definite objective scientific explanation as to why that person feels that way. If this opinion is governed by objective factors, can you really call it subjective? No, we are not a uniform race with no variation, but there are billions of factors that make each and every one of us unique. If you give the example of people's brains working differently being subective, that's like saying that the solution to a quadratic equation is subjective, because different coefficients lead to different solutions. The only difference is that we know exactly how to solve a quadratic equation, but we don't know how to identify people's preferences from their brain.

In any case, I still stand that every occurrence, regardless of whether you consider them to be subjective or not, have a definite mathematical explanations behind them, even though for most of them, we just aren't advanced enough to crack these proofs.

[Lord Raven]

True randomness can't exist. It makes no sense for any outcome to happen over any other possible outcome if there is no particular reason behind it. At the very least, you can have parallel universes to accommodate the results of what appear to be truly random occurrences. But as you said, it's our limitations in measurements that prevent us from discovering those outcomes.

Not... quite. From my own understanding of the hydrogen/single-electron atom, there's a lot of probability involved in the motion of the single-electron, and it's seemingly almost random. It moves around the atom and has a certain probability of being within two sets of angles and radii, and this is the sort of behavior Hydrogen observes in a vacuum. It is very random motion, and frankly it is already complicated and random enough within a hydrogen atom, imagine every other atom ever; there is tons of probability in quantum mechanics, partially due to limitations in measurement and partially because the world isn't quite as deterministic as one would think, especially because i've more or less figured (as a result of going through undergrad) that we don't quite know what we're doing in science either, so probability is more or less the way to go and, hell, may actually be the truth behind everything

but thats just how i view the world, it's hard to imagine probability without seeds or anything to that extent, but i definitely can't see much of a reason for subjectivity except for the fact that the world operates under probability


but philosophy is gay

Edited by Lord Raven, 05 May 2012 - 02:05 AM.

[eclipse]

You've only got yourselves to blame.

[Lord Raven]

tofu sucks, i prefer chicken

[eclipse]

[Lord Raven]

is that what you look like clipsey

because you look unappetizing

[eclipse]

I'm obviously going with someone who has better taste than you.

[SeverIan]

but philosophy is gay

Nietzsche said it better himself.

If someone has a "subjective" opinion of something, I believe there must be a very definite objective scientific explanation as to why that person feels that way. If this opinion is governed by objective factors, can you really call it subjective?

Again, I am wondering what you mean by "objective factors." To me, an objective factor would be one influencing, in a standardized way, multiple scenarios. For example, in a sports competition, we avoid conflicts of interest among those involved (no gambling). In judicial situations, as I mentioned above, we t ry, at least in the lower courts, to limit the judge's discretion and instead to standardize decisions around a body of case law, unless there is a landmark decision in a higher court. In an experiment, an objective factor would not be some sort of lurking variable in one or both of the groups that swayed the results of the experiment, but something controlled for by the designers.

The fact that the explanation is objective does not mean that the person is objective.

In any case, I still stand that every occurrence, regardless of whether you consider them to be subjective or not, have a definite mathematical explanations behind them, even though for most of them, we just aren't advanced enough to crack these proofs.

Instead of further argument over the above, I will say that I have no reason to believe that the above is incorrect.

Per the discussion on randomness, I have no idea whether it exists nor any pragmatic interest (certainly it is interesting to think about) - as long as others are uncertain and I have a chance, there is no need for randomness.

[eclipse]

Sevvie-poo

[Nightmare]

My tastes are objective truth.

[Thor Odinson]

Damn you guys now I want tofu >|