Relativism, absolute truth and alike.

dogman6126 said:
Materialism makes no such claim. Only if one is a hard determinist, and that is not entailed by a materialistic view. Compatibilist, or general non-determinist theories are completely compatible with materialist views because those theories deal with causation, not....hmmm...I suppose I can call it physical construction? Not sure what word to use there.

A lot of people these days are inclined to a determinist view, this idea of direct one result causation, but there is strong reason to think of the universe as probabilistic. Such as the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum physics. Further, assuming determinism does not rule out free will. Compatibilists have some very interesting things to say...
Click to expand...
Speaking from a neuroscientific standpoint they DO make such assumptions…and the assumption has been made on many levels too.
Not thinking right? Or Depressed? Then it MUST be a deficiency in Lithium…or Seretonin, or Dopamine…this is all hard deterministic science prevailing.
 
Wow! This is interesting! Some of it, like epistemology, I've read about. I will read further in what you've talked about.
Unfortunately, I feel inhibited in discussing on such a high level, because of the English language. (Google translate will be my hero).
 
The same goes with near death experiences, death-bed visitations, and out of body experiences…science prevailing today dismisses these as a product of a dying brain, or hallucinations, and random firings before we blink out.
 
Skarekrow said:
Speaking from a neuroscientific standpoint they DO make such assumptions…and the assumption has been made on many levels too.
Not thinking right? Or Depressed? Then it MUST be a deficiency in Lithium…or Seretonin, or Dopamine…this is all hard deterministic science prevailing.
Click to expand...

Determinism is often times an assumption of science because it allows us to look at what has been caused to determine what is causing. It allows us to make better sense of the universe, and overall has been VERY successful. However, psychological determinism does not entail a lack of free will. When considering deterministic causes (my disposition towards X was caused by neurons Y which were caused by event Z, etc.), one easily looses sight of the relevant question of free will. Namely, moral responsibility of agents. When questioning psychological causes in reference to free will, always remember what and where the self is. If the causes are within the self, then it is the self doing the causing. If the self is doing the causing, then we easily establish responsibility, and freedom of will of the psychological type can be shown in terms of counterfactuals. For example, had I wanted an apple, could I have eaten the apple instead of the pear? I'm sure that everyone would say yes to this.

Edit: One can be 100% materialist, and still hold this view.
 
dogman6126 said:
Determinism is often times an assumption of science because it allows us to look at what has been caused to determine what is causing. It allows us to make better sense of the universe, and overall has been VERY successful. However, psychological determinism does not entail a lack of free will. When considering deterministic causes (my disposition towards X was caused by neurons Y which were caused by event Z, etc.), one easily looses sight of the relevant question of free will. Namely, moral responsibility of agents. When questioning psychological causes in reference to free will, always remember what and where the self is. If the causes are within the self, then it is the self doing the causing. If the self is doing the causing, then we easily establish responsibility, and freedom of will of the psychological type can be shown in terms of counterfactuals. For example, had I wanted an apple, could I have eaten the apple instead of the pear? I'm sure that everyone would say yes to this.

Edit: One can be 100% materialist, and still hold this view.
Click to expand...

One significant finding of modern studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them. Researchers have found delays of about half a second (discussed in sections below). With contemporary brain scanning technology, other scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice.[SUP][5][/SUP] These and other findings have led some scientists, like Patrick Haggard, to reject some forms of "free will". To be clear, no single study would disprove all forms of free will. This is because the term "free will" can encapsulate different hypotheses, each of which must be considered in light of existing empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
 
That says - You’re a meat computer.
I reject that.
 
Oscillation said:
Wow! This is interesting! Some of it, like epistemology, I've read about. I will read further in what you've talked about.
Unfortunately, I feel inhibited in discussing on such a high level, because of the English language. (Google translate will be my hero).
Click to expand...

Language is always an annoying barrier....
I'm currently studying philosophy, and very much enjoy discussing it. You should feel free to ask questions and offer points as you please. I don't mean to hijack your thread, lol. I'll remember from now on to define terms better and use examples. Perhaps that will help to get ideas across better?
 
dogman6126 said:
you could have many reasons to reject that view. Before I answer, can you give your reason please?
Click to expand...

Probably in no terms that come from a purely logical standpoint, there is a limit to my views and then I stand on what bit of faith I have found from time to time.
Mostly personal experience both as a medical worker and incidents that have happened throughout my life that have lead me to believe that there is so much more to this world than meets the eye.
And lastly, I feel it intrinsically…that there is a mind/brain dualism.
 
solongotgon said:
you may want to read Emmanual Kant's writings and philosophy. same things you are discussing here. plato's republic also discusses relativism and reality.
Click to expand...
In my philosophy class in high school I also learned about this through Kant.

Skarekrow said:
Speaking from a neuroscientific standpoint they DO make such assumptions…and the assumption has been made on many levels too.
Not thinking right? Or Depressed? Then it MUST be a deficiency in Lithium…or Seretonin, or Dopamine…this is all hard deterministic science prevailing.
Click to expand...
Skarekrow said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
Click to expand...
And [MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]

Check out this paper called Indeterminacy in Brain and Behavior. It's the only scientific paper I thoroughly enjoyed reading. All 30 pages.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141429
It's more about indeterminacy and not about free will or relativity.

On determinism I'm undecided. On free will I agree with Steven Pinker:
The scientific mode of explanation cannot accommodate the notion of uncaused causation that underlies the will... A random event does not fit the concept of free will any more than a lawful one does, and could not serve as the long-sought locus of moral responsibility.

[MENTION=13285]Oscillation[/MENTION]
I agree with your opening statement. There's an absolute truth, except we can never perceive it, because we're limited in our own subjectivity and relativity.
The paradox is that if you state that everything is relative, you just made an absolute statement. But then I wonder, is a statement starting with everything is... necessarily absolute? Well, I want to believe it's a paradox or "apparent contradiction" and not a real contradiction. I can't find the loophole though.

Oh wow, this is a goldmine. A mind boggling goldmine
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EverythingIsRelativeStrangeLoop
 
I'd start with....

The opposite of truth would be falsehood. Wither everlasting or not, as absolutes dictate.....The truth holds longer and endures longer.....as its a fact of reality.
Therefore falsehood is the portrayal of reality other than it is...and vice versa...and in principle, it's perception that's settles that...so truth is a matter of accurately understanding the objective reality through observation.

Whilst in relativism there are of course no absolutes. All is subjective according to change in perception and contemplation.....the idea's the truth always close to the source, relatively....i.e culture.
Relative truth has properties of a logical system and mathematics....i.e 2 + 2 = 4.....it can be proved from the axioms.

As much as I am influenced by absolutes. I think of the truth as Relative.... not to people, or just culture... but inevitably to its axioms.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=12103]Erlian[/MENTION]

Even absolutes can be relative. For example, you can have absolute coordinates on a television screen. You can make it relative though by moving the television.
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=12103]Erlian[/MENTION]

Even absolutes can be relative. For example, you can have absolute coordinates on a television screen. You can make it relative though by moving the television.
Click to expand...

I might misunderstand you, but "absolute coordinates" on a television? If there is a coordinate system that has a referens - being it the television or anything else - then it's a relative coordinate, since you can switch out the reference.

I think it becomes a little confusing talking about absolutes and relatives when talking about coordinates, as they are build upon the relative principle all together. Talking about for example moral gives a little more difficult topic, since we either have created it ourself or there is an absolute moral.

Speaking of it, is there a nessecity to have "created it yourself" for it to be a relative truth, or can you create an abolute yourself? Is there a relative truth that hasn't been created by us humans? I don't know if my thoughts make sense.
 
Oscillation said:
I might misunderstand you, but "absolute coordinates" on a television? If there is a coordinate system that has a referens - being it the television or anything else - then it's a relative coordinate, since you can switch out the reference.
Click to expand...
That's what it's called. It's called absolute because the 'reference' is always from a zero point, and the zero point of the screen never moves. The zero point on a screen is absolute and when you factor in the aspect ratio, you always know where a coordinate falls on a given screen. It's never different. That is why it is absolute.

It'd be relative if it were say arbitrary position x+5 y+7. For example if you right click in a browser you get a little popup next to the pointer - that's a relative coordinate because it is next to the pointer and the pointer can move. Absolute coordinates never move relative to their immediate surroundings - their 'universe'. What happens though if you move the universe?

I think it becomes a little confusing talking about absolutes and relatives when talking about coordinates, as they are build upon the relative principle all together. Talking about for example moral gives a little more difficult topic, since we either have created it ourself or there is an absolute moral.
Click to expand...
A thing can only be absolute by virtue of not being immediately relative. Which means a thing might be absolute, but not absolutely. Things can happen to make it relative.

Speaking of it, is there a nessecity to have "created it yourself" for it to be a relative truth, or can you create an abolute yourself? Is there a relative truth that hasn't been created by us humans? I don't know if my thoughts make sense.
Click to expand...
We can make absolutes, relatively.
 
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

But, but... 'absolutes'? 'Relative'? Hmmm. Yes, the coordinates in a television are absolute to the "point zero" of the screen, but if you move the whole television you have moved that point, and the whole reference system along with it. Of this I'm sure you're aware of. So it's called an 'absolute' in the system of the television coordinates, but a all the coordinates on the screen are relative to the 'point zero' in the system of the... lets say the room the television stands in. Thus are the coordinates both absolute and relative depending on from wich perspectiv and reference system you have chosen. Right?

Let's say there is an absolute system, that stands above all other. Then surely all other systems most be relative to this absolute system - if it's "the one system" - and (ironicly) giving the universe an absolute truth... that's relative. Wierd, but logical, don't you think?

EDIT: I just reliazed that my 'argument' may not be as strong... I remember Gödel. Perhaps relativism is the thing after all... intriguing!
 
Last edited:
Oscillation said:
Why abandon science?
Click to expand...

Sorry for being vague, I was stuck inside my own head. Anyway, I used to study science (humanities though) before moving on to arts. Haven't really abandoned it but haven't really followed what has happened in the world of science lately.

I got the feeling from that manifesto that it might be a big leap forward once it hits the fan so to say...or maybe it has. Or maybe it will take some time. (Sorry too lazy to read the whole thread, don't know what you have been talking about...)

Jag älskar Sverige. :-)
 
vyrm said:
Sorry for being vague, I was stuck inside my own head. Anyway, I used to study science (humanities though) before moving on to arts. Haven't really abandoned it but haven't really followed what has happened in the world of science lately.

I got the feeling from that manifesto that it might be a big leap forward once it hits the fan so to say...or maybe it has. Or maybe it will take some time. (Sorry too lazy to read the whole thread, don't know what you have been talking about...)

Jag älskar Sverige. :-)
Click to expand...

No need to apoligize :)
Aah, I see! We'll see if it hits the fan (and spreads all the shit around... isn't that the saying? ;))

Come visit! :m129:
 
vyrm said:
Wow that manifesto makes me wish I hadn't abandoned science!
Click to expand...

Science and spirituality can go hand in hand…they should, and IMO we will make great strides in our human society when we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top