StillLooking Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 That's fine and have said several times to these people that we may have an objective discussion within our own subjectivity. Have even gone as far as agreeing with these nimrods that there is most likely a reality if all humanity died. But for the life of me, they will not accept that everything is defined and objectified through humanity....which is my point. I disagree. Objective is objective as we just demonstrated with your 11 answer. It does not involve subjectivity at all. Where do you see the subjectivity in that answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I think there is a possibility that End3 does work in a lab doing quantitative and qualitative chemistry work. My mistake yesterday was assuming he worked in a research & development (R&D) or quality assurance (QA) department. My guess is he probably works in a quality control (QC) lab. QC technicians need to perform the procedures and make sure the results fall within the confidence intervals. If they don't, what the technicians need to do is report it to supervisors and the supervisors will forward it to QA and R&D. One thing that I want to mention to End3 is if 2 different machines give 2 different results it does not mean the results are subjective. Take a simple pH meter for example. You can buy a $50 that gives you water pH of 6 or you can buy a $150 that gives you a pH of 6.4 or you can buy a $400 that gives you pH of 6.44 or you can get a $1000 that gives you a pH of 6.444. Those numbers are not subjective. Those machines give different result due to their accuracy, very different concept than subjective. I hope my explanation helps. Yes, often the state demands instruments that can do very low detection limits....thus driving the little lab guy out of business because they don't have enough samples to pay for that type of instrument. My feeling is then they don't have to audit the little guys and thus save the state money. The big chain labs are the ones that survive because they have all the paperwork already written for one location and then just change the name for their new locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 That's fine and have said several times to these people that we may have an objective discussion within our own subjectivity. Have even gone as far as agreeing with these nimrods that there is most likely a reality if all humanity died. But for the life of me, they will not accept that everything is defined and objectified through humanity....which is my point. I disagree. Objective is objective as we just demonstrated with your 11 answer. It does not involve subjectivity at all. Where do you see the subjectivity in that answer? I am practicing objectivity. Humans are subjective by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 To your questions SL....11 and look up the others. I'm sure there are standard definitions. Then, the answer 11 that you arrive at is because you are following the objective rule in reporting result based on significant figure. You see, it is objective. People in Russia, China, Australia will arrive at the same answer. This means you can think objectively. This is the point that so many of people here have been trying to prove to you. So, everybody, here is the prove that something can be objective coming from End3. Thank you End3. That's fine and have said several times to these people that we may have an objective discussion within our own subjectivity. Have even gone as far as agreeing with these nimrods that there is most likely a reality if all humanity died. But for the life of me, they will not accept that everything is defined and objectified through humanity....which is my point. And a totally incorrect point, End. A factually and logically incorrect one too. Which is why I won't accept it. The light that left the Andromeda galaxy, did so 2.5 million years ago - long before Homo Sapiens evolved. The light that left other, more distant galaxies left those stars long before the Dinosaurs existed, over 200 million years ago. We've detected light that left galaxies billions of years ago, before the Earth even existed. All of this light didn't need humans to define it to be radiated from those stars. Nor did it need humans to define it to travel billions of light years to us. Nor does the light that bypasses the Earth and carries right on need humans to define or objectify it. The universe has existed independently of us and will continue to do so. You appear to be in denial of the independent existence of the entire universe. If you BAA, are wanting me to say "we are equals" in that we may hold ourselves to some objective standard. fine. But this standard was defined by humanity.....in the '30s I think by a human......a subjective human. UNLESS we take define ALL of his subjectivity and ALL of ours as OBJECTIVE, then there will never be a lack of subjectivity......not even with our very very very best efforts. Again, for someone who prides themselves being akin to Spock, I'm sure this floors you. Your illogic floors the human part of me, that's for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. It exists regardless of the meaning you give to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. It exists regardless of the meaning you give to it. Yes, and when it is defined, the definition is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 23, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. False. The meaning of the tree would have been defined by what benefit it brought to its environment. The meaning would have been defined by the protection and shelter it gave to other species, the oxygen it produced, the food it provided in the form of acorns or fruits. As I've explained before, nature does not need humans to have meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 To your questions SL....11 and look up the others. I'm sure there are standard definitions. Then, the answer 11 that you arrive at is because you are following the objective rule in reporting result based on significant figure. You see, it is objective. People in Russia, China, Australia will arrive at the same answer. This means you can think objectively. This is the point that so many of people here have been trying to prove to you. So, everybody, here is the prove that something can be objective coming from End3. Thank you End3. That's fine and have said several times to these people that we may have an objective discussion within our own subjectivity. Have even gone as far as agreeing with these nimrods that there is most likely a reality if all humanity died. But for the life of me, they will not accept that everything is defined and objectified through humanity....which is my point. And a totally incorrect point, End. A factually and logically incorrect one too. Which is why I won't accept it. The light that left the Andromeda galaxy, did so 2.5 million years ago - long before Homo Sapiens evolved. The light that left other, more distant galaxies left those stars long before the Dinosaurs existed, over 200 million years ago. We've detected light that left galaxies billions of years ago, before the Earth even existed. All of this light didn't need humans to define it to be radiated from those stars. Nor did it need humans to define it to travel billions of light years to us. Nor does the light that bypasses the Earth and carries right on need humans to define or objectify it. The universe has existed independently of us and will continue to do so. You appear to be in denial of the independent existence of the entire universe. If you BAA, are wanting me to say "we are equals" in that we may hold ourselves to some objective standard. fine. But this standard was defined by humanity.....in the '30s I think by a human......a subjective human. UNLESS we take define ALL of his subjectivity and ALL of ours as OBJECTIVE, then there will never be a lack of subjectivity......not even with our very very very best efforts. Again, for someone who prides themselves being akin to Spock, I'm sure this floors you. Your illogic floors the human part of me, that's for sure! Prove it BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. False. The meaning of the tree would have been defined by what benefit it brought to its environment. The meaning would have been defined by the protection and shelter it gave to other species, the oxygen it produced, the food it provided in the form of acorns or fruits. As I've explained before, nature does not need humans to have meaning. So you're saying nature has a consciousness outside of ours that gives definitions? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 23, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. It exists regardless of the meaning you give to it. Yes, and when it is defined, the definition is subjective. False again. The protection the tree provided for other species was an objective reality. The shelter it provided for other species was an objective reality. The oxygen and food it provided were both objective realities. And the gravity that caused the acorns to fall from it was, is, and has always been an objective reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 23, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. False. The meaning of the tree would have been defined by what benefit it brought to its environment. The meaning would have been defined by the protection and shelter it gave to other species, the oxygen it produced, the food it provided in the form of acorns or fruits. As I've explained before, nature does not need humans to have meaning. So you're saying nature has a consciousness outside of ours that gives definitions? Really? Your ability to produce strawman arguments is also an objective reality. I said nothing about definitions. The word I used was "meaning". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 That's fine and have said several times to these people that we may have an objective discussion within our own subjectivity. Have even gone as far as agreeing with these nimrods that there is most likely a reality if all humanity died. But for the life of me, they will not accept that everything is defined and objectified through humanity....which is my point. I disagree. Objective is objective as we just demonstrated with your 11 answer. It does not involve subjectivity at all. Where do you see the subjectivity in that answer? I am practicing objectivity. Humans are subjective by default. However the result of adding several things together is just going to be the same regardless whether someone measures it or not. This means, no, I reject your premise that objectivity is within subjectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 We will have to agree to disagree. Where were we in our science discussion? I haven't had a chance to read the brain articles you linked Prof. Does our disagreement disqualify me from having an objective discourse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 23, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 23, 2014 We will have to agree to disagree. Where were we in our science discussion? I haven't had a chance to read the brain articles you linked Prof. Does our disagreement disqualify me from having an objective discourse? No. As BAA has already pointed out (repeatedly) your steadfast refusal to move past "everything is subjective" disqualifies you from having an objective discourse. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I think there is a possibility that End3 does work in a lab doing quantitative and qualitative chemistry work. My mistake yesterday was assuming he worked in a research & development (R&D) or quality assurance (QA) department. My guess is he probably works in a quality control (QC) lab. QC technicians need to perform the procedures and make sure the results fall within the confidence intervals. If they don't, what the technicians need to do is report it to supervisors and the supervisors will forward it to QA and R&D. One thing that I want to mention to End3 is if 2 different machines give 2 different results it does not mean the results are subjective. Take a simple pH meter for example. You can buy a $50 that gives you water pH of 6 or you can buy a $150 that gives you a pH of 6.4 or you can buy a $400 that gives you pH of 6.44 or you can get a $1000 that gives you a pH of 6.444. Those numbers are not subjective. Those machines give different result due to their accuracy, very different concept than subjective. I hope my explanation helps. Yes, often the state demands instruments that can do very low detection limits....thus driving the little lab guy out of business because they don't have enough samples to pay for that type of instrument. My feeling is then they don't have to audit the little guys and thus save the state money. The big chain labs are the ones that survive because they have all the paperwork already written for one location and then just change the name for their new locations. I disagree. You should blame companies that do clever tricks to go around government regulations. For example: Do you remember the case for melamine tainted milk in China? The regulation for what constitute as milk is if it has a certain percentage of protein. They measure protein content by a method that measuring nitrogen content (Protein is rich in nitrogen). Someone in China tried to make more profit by adding melamine, also rich in nitrogen, to milk, which jacked up the measured supposed to be protein content. This caused people to get sick and die. Now do you see why government regulations require precise measurements and thus more expensive? This is to prevent cases like this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 To your questions SL....11 and look up the others. I'm sure there are standard definitions. Then, the answer 11 that you arrive at is because you are following the objective rule in reporting result based on significant figure. You see, it is objective. People in Russia, China, Australia will arrive at the same answer. This means you can think objectively. This is the point that so many of people here have been trying to prove to you. So, everybody, here is the prove that something can be objective coming from End3. Thank you End3. That's fine and have said several times to these people that we may have an objective discussion within our own subjectivity. Have even gone as far as agreeing with these nimrods that there is most likely a reality if all humanity died. But for the life of me, they will not accept that everything is defined and objectified through humanity....which is my point. And a totally incorrect point, End. A factually and logically incorrect one too. Which is why I won't accept it. The light that left the Andromeda galaxy, did so 2.5 million years ago - long before Homo Sapiens evolved. The light that left other, more distant galaxies left those stars long before the Dinosaurs existed, over 200 million years ago. We've detected light that left galaxies billions of years ago, before the Earth even existed. All of this light didn't need humans to define it to be radiated from those stars. Nor did it need humans to define it to travel billions of light years to us. Nor does the light that bypasses the Earth and carries right on need humans to define or objectify it. The universe has existed independently of us and will continue to do so. You appear to be in denial of the independent existence of the entire universe. If you BAA, are wanting me to say "we are equals" in that we may hold ourselves to some objective standard. fine. But this standard was defined by humanity.....in the '30s I think by a human......a subjective human. UNLESS we take define ALL of his subjectivity and ALL of ours as OBJECTIVE, then there will never be a lack of subjectivity......not even with our very very very best efforts. Again, for someone who prides themselves being akin to Spock, I'm sure this floors you. Your illogic floors the human part of me, that's for sure! Others have provided another example: gravity. Another example I can think on top of my head: ice floats on water. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. It exists regardless of the meaning you give to it. Yes, and when it is defined, the definition is subjective. No, your perception is subjective. But the reality being described is objective. It exists independent of your definitions or perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 We will have to agree to disagree. Where were we in our science discussion? I haven't had a chance to read the brain articles you linked Prof. Does our disagreement disqualify me from having an objective discourse? No. As BAA has already pointed out (repeatedly) your steadfast refusal to move past "everything is subjective" disqualifies you from having an objective discourse. Ha, via the test I had to take, it proves that I can do objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 We will have to agree to disagree. Where were we in our science discussion? I haven't had a chance to read the brain articles you linked Prof. Does our disagreement disqualify me from having an objective discourse? No. As BAA has already pointed out (repeatedly) your steadfast refusal to move past "everything is subjective" disqualifies you from having an objective discourse. Ha, via the test I had to take, it proves that I can do objective. Yes, but you keep moving the goal posts. First, it was everything is subjective. When it was proven you can be objective then it becomes you can be objective but it is still within the scope of subjectivity. Now, how are you going to explain gravity? So, if nobody is around the gravity does not exist? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. It exists regardless of the meaning you give to it. Yes, and when it is defined, the definition is subjective. No, your perception is subjective. But the reality being described is objective. It exists independent of your definitions or perception. Yes and what perception is there outside of yours, mine, and others? What is reality outside of perception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 We will have to agree to disagree. Where were we in our science discussion? I haven't had a chance to read the brain articles you linked Prof. Does our disagreement disqualify me from having an objective discourse? No. As BAA has already pointed out (repeatedly) your steadfast refusal to move past "everything is subjective" disqualifies you from having an objective discourse. Ha, via the test I had to take, it proves that I can do objective. Yes, but you keep moving the goal posts. First, it was everything is subjective. When it was proven you can be objective then it becomes you can be objective but it is still within the scope of subjectivity. Now, how are you going to explain gravity? So, if nobody is around the gravity does not exist? BTW, you just exemplified subjectivity.....if you don't believe the way we do, then... If it were the other way around, we would all be unified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. It exists regardless of the meaning you give to it. Yes, and when it is defined, the definition is subjective. No, your perception is subjective. But the reality being described is objective. It exists independent of your definitions or perception. Yes and what perception is there outside of yours, mine, and others? What is reality outside of perception? Reality exists outside of your head, End. Just because you don't preceive it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Example: radio waves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 End, argiung that there is no objective reality is just silly. Why do you keep doing it? Answer me this please. Before humanity, what was a tree? It was a tree, End. A tree without a name. No, it could have been a pee pillar....as designated by a dog....if dogs could designate. Biggest point is it is meaningless without being defined. It exists regardless of the meaning you give to it. Yes, and when it is defined, the definition is subjective. No, your perception is subjective. But the reality being described is objective. It exists independent of your definitions or perception. Yes and what perception is there outside of yours, mine, and others? What is reality outside of perception? Reality exists outside of your head, End. Just because you don't preceive it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Example: radio waves Let's go with your example. How are we to perceive radio waves outside of my head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts