Ahh yes Neil I like this. So using this then we can see the differances in what exactly a 'fact' is dependant on what world it inhabits?
On 15 Sep, 15:14, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The is another route into this. Popper once described three worlds, > an idea we can track back to Averoes and no doubt earlier religious > thinking. His world 3 was objective or eternal - 'stuff' we worked on > and found always to be the case. This from Wiki: > Worlds 1, 2 and 3 > > Popperian cosmology splits the universe into three interacting sub- > universes: > World 1: the world of physical objects and events, including > biological entities > World 2: the world of mental objects and events > World 3: the world of the products of the human mind > The main argument for the existence of World 2 and World 3 is the > direct or indirect causation on World 1. > [edit]The interaction of World 1 and World 2 > > The theory of interaction between World 1 and World 2 is an > alternative theory to Cartesian dualism. Cartesian dualism is based on > the theory that the universe is composed of two essential substances: > Res Cogitans and Res Extensa. Popperian cosmology rejects this > essentialism, but maintains the common sense view that physical and > mental states exist, and they interact. > The interaction of World 1 and World 2 is also an alternative to > epiphenomenalism, where World 2 objects and events are real but do not > have any causal action on World 1. Popperian cosmology rejects this > for the reason that "downward causation" is not impossible. > [edit]World 3 > > Popperian cosmology claims the existence of a third world called World > 3, which contains the products of the human mind. World 3 contains > abstract objects such as scientific theories, stories, myths, tools, > social institutions, and works of art. Karl Popper's theory of > objective knowledge belongs to World 3. Scientific theories are formed > in World 3, which enable them to be criticised and to be potentially > falsified. > [edit]The interaction of World 2 and World 3 > > The interaction of World 2 and World 3 is based on the theory that > World 3 is partially autonomous. For example, the development of > scientific theories in World 3 leads to unintended consequences, in > that problems and contradictions are discovered by World 2. Another > example is that the process of learning causes World 3 to change World > 2. > [edit]The interaction of World 1 and World 3 > > Contained in World 3 are also things as feats of engineering and art. > The World 3 objects, although extant in World 1, are embodied and > given extra meaning by World 3. For example, the intrinsic value of > Hamlet as a World 3 object has many embodiments in World 1, the > physical world. This idea would be something along the lines of a meta- > object, or a form of a being. > > Hamlet, to certain minds at certain time, may be considered 'dog > excrement' or 'fine literature'. I never liked the play, but would > consider 'The Wire' an excellent example of fine literature acting as > metaphor for what is really going on in the world. Others might > consider it crude and opportunistic. I would generally say that we > don't go about falsifying or substantiating our world 3 objects > sufficiently. > > On 15 Sep, 09:49, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Heh sorry Slip I'll try to play nice huh. > > > Yes a fact is a fact and that is a fact! > > > Although I think you would be hard pressed to find a true objective > > (science not-withstanding) fact, your dog food example, for umm > > example. > > > Dog food is only for dogs because that is what we subjectivly use it > > for. A fact is that most food can be eaten by most animals, including > > ourselfs. > > > I guess what I'm trying to show is that this: > > > 'Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, so we > > should work from there.' > > > Is not objectivly true. Of course facts can be subject to > > subjectivity. If the meaning of the word 'fact' is a play on the word > > 'truth' then any fact that is not scientific in nature can be > > subjectivly true. > > > It is an objective fact that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, except of > > coure if you measure me in meters. > > > It is a subjective fact that a Socialist goverment is better for the > > whole of sociaty than a Conservitive goverment. > > > Philosophy, politics and religon are all subject to relative > > arguments, each person will take a stance and claim it as truth. I > > claim that Rands philosophy does not work in the real word, my > > evidance is purly subjective and bassed upon my own interactions with > > follows of Rand, but I can certianly say that my claim is fact, as > > Rand can claim that: > > > 'Every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of > > his life.' > > > Is also a fact. The true fact is that both of us have uttered what is > > no more than opinion. > > > Unless of course you can objectivly show me why the above is fact? > > > On 14 Sep, 19:09, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Come'on mon, stop jerkin me chain. > > > > I changed it to "Product", not any specific product that you can turn > > > into argumentative matter, but point is subjectivity does not change > > > fact. > > > It's "NOT" about any car lee, nor about debating a product's value. > > > > FACT: Dog food is for dogs. > > > Billy Bob: "I think dog food tastes good" > > > Sally: "I mix dog food with my Ramen". > > > Lee: "Dog food has real food in it" > > > SO which is it? > > > Fact A: Dog food is not dog food because "some" people like to eat it. > > > OR > > > Fact B: Dog food is still dog food even though some people like to eat > > > it. Dog food is for dogs. > > > > I go with Fact B. > > > > On Sep 14, 7:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Well I'll take that as a compliment Slip, cheers mate. > > > > > Your reply to my first post was though full of subjectivity. You did > > > > not mention any particular car, so without the full information I > > > > could only assume you meant all cars, or cars in general. The fact is > > > > that some cars are better built than most, yes some are junk some are > > > > not. > > > > > So when you say 'the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk', well I see > > > > no fact there at all merely opinion, and thus my response. If you had > > > > made your analogy clearer, then my response would have been differant, > > > > or I may have even agreed with you. > > > > > Yes I have agreed that I can see some validty in the quote of Rands > > > > that you provided, my main thrust is that in my experiance the > > > > philosphy of Rand simply does not work in the real word. > > > > > I wonder now would you see such a statment as objective fact or > > > > subjective opinion? > > > > > On 14 Sep, 12:34, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding>>Lee > > > > > > You can color facts all you want but "fact" remains unchanged. > > > > > > I think you have a tendency to get a bit microscopic in your analysis, > > > > > not to mention that you are not addressing the point made but > > > > > emphasizing subjectivity. It's not about cars! > > > > > The "fact of subjectivity" does not alter the "fact". > > > > > If a product is junk, the fact that people may perceive it to be other > > > > > does not change the fact that the product is junk. > > > > > > Rand can be chilly but not totally without validity in regards to > > > > > alternative thinking. It's not about the differences in people. > > > > > > On Sep 14, 3:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Slip. > > > > > > > Umm much to say on this. > > > > > > > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding. A car > > > > > > to you may be a piece of junk, but to others represents freedom of > > > > > > movment as well as being a marvel of engineering, these are both > > > > > > facts > > > > > > also. However they seem to go against what you claim is the fact of > > > > > > the matter re: cars. > > > > > > > So which facts are objectivly correct? > > > > > > > This: > > > > > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of > > > > > > others. > > > > > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to > > > > > > others > > > > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > > > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose > > > > > > of > > > > > > his life." > > > > > > > On the surface does look like good advice and I do see some merit in > > > > > > it, yet it still ignores the differances in people, and it reminds > > > > > > me > > > > > > a ot of certain Church of Satan creeds, again I also have known many > > > > > > such Satanists and I can say without fear of contridiction that > > > > > > such a > > > > > > philosophy when put into practice makes for a cold human being. > > > > > > > No I'm much more comfatable with the philosophy 'be the person you > > > > > > wish to be'. If that is to be selfish then that is at least your > > > > > > choice, and if that is to be alturisitic again that is personal > > > > > > choice. > > > > > > The highest moral porpouse then must be live your life how you will, > > > > > > in accordance with the law of the land. > > > > > > > I am not a fan of soldiers on the whole, our(the UK) armed forces > > > > > > takes in children and passes out wankers, of course though I see the > > > > > > need and I don't blame the individual squaddies for the lack of care > > > > > > that our goverement gives them. Would you say that to be a soldier > > > > > > is > > > > > > in keeping with Randian thought? Or that it is more self > > > > > > sacrificial > > > > > > in nature? > > > > > > > I would argue the latter. So you see the word Randriod is very apt, > > > > > > no it would bloody awful if we all thought like that, viva la > > > > > > differance! > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 08:25, Slip > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
