Objective, Absolute, Subjective (Part 2 of 2)

Only 39 views...

Entire video:
http://www.vloggerheads.com/video/philosophy-objective-absolute

VloggerHeads:
http://www.vloggerheads.com/profile/InMendham

LimaPalooza:
http://limapalooza.ning.com/

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• inmendham
• objective
• absolute
• subjective
• truth
• logic

[musclestream]

Ahh, the tipping point of inevitable transformation!

Proud of you Gary, I am ready whenever you are to conversate about these subjects in the future. Did you see my latest video?

[InmendhamVideos]

@musclestream

I am not Gary.

[GeraldWatercrest]

The first vloggerheads link is giving a "page cannot be found" error.

[InmendhamVideos]

@GeraldWatercrest

oops...working now. Thanks.

[MidwinterSon]

Only 68 views...

[unassumption]

I wouldn't trust humans to as a group come to the truth. It might die rather than accept the truth. Or the truth might not help people survive odd as that might be.

[unassumption]

Specific evaluations that are objectively more likely for the human evaluator to lead to positive evaluations within any value system can be derived.

As for non-evaluative truths? These cannot be proven as certainties to any subject - since our senses, evaluations and even our logic are not provable as perfectly authoritative and many of our sources are secondary - but it is likely that the truth is objective. If a statement is meaningful, it is objectively either true or false.

[unassumption]

Humans are social animals and it is better (internally coherent value set likely to keep us in a state capable of making evaluations) for most of us to preserve and advance society, to construct safety nets and fair markets; i a small subset of the population may have a 'cheaters niche' in the population, but if the majority acted to deter cheaters, it would be objectively true for the cheater that cheating is a high risk likely to lead to negative consequences.

[unassumption]

Some value sets are more internally coherent than others, and therefore objectively more likely to be positively evaluated from within any value system. The nature of the evaluator (on earth - a human or higher animal) is objective, and can be used to assess weather a set of values is likely to lead to consequences that evaluator will objectively react negatively to or to consequences the evaluator will react positively to.

[unassumption]

Evaluation capable objects appear to be always composites of many parts, which change when exposed to almost any stimulus into another object - in a predictable manner - so the values of that object may change - predictably - over time, but are still objectively held at the instance of the evaluation.

Does it 'mean' much to say "for a person who currently believes baby rape is wrong, and curry tastes good, it is objectively true that baby rape is wrong and curry tastes nice"?

[unassumption]

Values are properties of an object capable of making evaluations; ham tastes good is meaningless, ham tastes good to me has either a positive or negative truth value. Any object capable of evaluating a stimulus is, as a consequence of this deterministic world, objectively guaranteed to have the same truth value whenever that object (while it remains that object) is exposed to the stimulus. X is wrong is meaningless unless an evaluator is brought in, after that the evaluation is objectively true