LOGICZOMBIE
welcome to thought club
- Local time
- Today 3:09 AM
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2021
- Messages
- 1,099
An admirable goal.
Impossible to execute without OPINION.
descriptive vs prescriptive
Yesterday, we didn't have evidence that the sun came up today. So yesterday, the sun was a noumenon.2) If only the simulation existed, then your mind could never receive counter-evidence that shows part of the simulation is wrong. You'd think you were always right.
Any "thing" we don't have evidence of is an aspect of NOUMENON.
Part of the NOUMENON is potentially "knowable", Mysterium Invisus and part of it is fundamentally unknowable, Magnum Mysterium.
I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through nine-million-trillion-ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
You seem to be interpreting the word "objective" as if it means "empirically quantifiable in an infallible way". As you explained, empirically quantifiable data is never infallible, and such a word doesn't make any sense.The Sun is objective and not subjective, because it fulfils the definition of "objective" and does not fulfil the definition of "subjective".
What you're highlighting here is QUANTA.
Certain characteristics of OBJECTS are QUANTIFIABLE.
Not every human can verify the chemical composition of THE SUN.
Not every human can verify the size of THE SUN.
HOWEVER, nearly every human throughout history (even the blind) has experienced some direct evidence of and developed some concept of THE SUN.
AND THEY WERE ONLY ABLE TO DO THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF THEIR FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL PERCEPTION.
There is no "perspectiveless" "objective" "reality".
There is no "view from nowhere".
There is no statement or claim that is magically free from SAMPLE-BIAS.
So we can never discover anything.
You seem to be interpreting the word "objective" as if it means "empirically quantifiable in an infallible way". As you explained, empirically quantifiable data is never infallible, and such a word doesn't make any sense.
But when people talk about "objectivity" outside of science, they mean things that are non-subjective, and by "subjective", they mean things that some people believe are true, and others believe are false.
We have evidence that the sun came up today. So today, the sun is a phenomenon.
We know things by our intuitions which is a perception of the unconscious. So we know the sun will rise tomorrow because of our causality intuition. Things happen and we know the reason behind them through intuition, which brings the unconscious into consciousness.
In which case, you're saying that things don't change until they tell us.
So we can never discover anything.
There are three categories outlined.
(1) KNOWN PHENOMENA
(2) UNREVEALED BUT KNOWABLE MYSTERIUM INVISUS (NOUMENON TYPE 2)
(3) UNKNOWABLE MAGNUM MYSTERIUM (NOUMENON TYPE 1)
As we discover and document phenomena, items move from category two to category one.
As we forget, items move from category one back to category two.
pretending
pretending that everything conceivable is potentially and or ontologically "real-true-fact" (even and especially before any evidence is confirmed) makes the division between the real and the imagined meaningless.
Items only move from category two to category one, or from category one to category two, when they have been objectively proved to exist without bias.They also commonly conflate "objective" with "unbiased" which is a logically impossible characteristic.But when people talk about "objectivity" outside of science, they mean things that are non-subjective, and by "subjective", they mean things that some people believe are true, and others believe are false.
We know things by our intuitions which is a perception of the unconscious. So we know the sun will rise tomorrow because of our causality intuition. Things happen and we know the reason behind them through intuition, which brings the unconscious into consciousness.
Once you have adequately confirmed an identifiable phenomena empirically beyond four SIGMA, you can very confidently move that item into the KNOWN category.
For personal use, four SIGMA might be a little high, but that's up to the individual to decide.
100% confidence is not prerequisite to action.
In the same way a general continuously gathers reconnaissance from the battlefield, and yet, imperfect intelligence does not paralyze them.
but we function in this world and we assume causality less than statistical verifiable.
Thus, you can never know for certain if an item is in category 1, category 2, or category 3.
but we function in this world and we assume causality less than statistical verifiable.
Sure. I know that you can never know for certain if an item is in category 1, category 2, or category 3.Do you know some things and not know other things ?Thus, you can never know for certain if an item is in category 1, category 2, or category 3.