The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Examining Value Ontology

    Share
    avatar
    witchdoctor

    Posts : 89
    Join date : 2018-02-13

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by witchdoctor on Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:26 pm

    @Zoot

    "it's not valuing that causes me to recognize the truth of these statements."

    I agree, but neither is judgment. What causes you to recognize the truth of these statements is that they are verifiable. They are not subjective, not up for dispute.
    An analysis of a syllogistic is not a judgment. Logic requires no judgment. A logical statement is true or false regardless of whether or not you agree.

    One can say that by refusing to accept a fact, such as, say, 1 + 1 = 2, or that there can be no free will, a person is using poor judgment. But not because accepting a fact is a judgment, but because one is considering a fact to be a matter of opinion, and therefore requiring a judgment. It does not.

    Judgment is not the observation of a fact. It is the evaluation or conclusions that proceed from that observation. It is subjective. It is the forming of an opinion. The key word is evaluation. It implies, a decision making process.

    Now I do agree with you that some decision making process is highly cognitive, but not all of it. A lot of it is intuitive, and a lot of it is instinctive.

    I agree that all values are judgments, but you say not all judgments are values and I disagree with that because as I said judgment is an opinion on a subjective matter, so all judgments are embedded with values. Every judgment is made under the influence of values. They come into the equation in that decision making process whether you like it or not.

    ----

    Sorry about the confusion with truth. When I said "there can be no truth without valuing, I meant there can be no perspective without valuing", because we had just read some N. and determined that no truth can be reached other than a perspective. I just switched the words. I didn't mean truth as in logic.
    As you go on developing your perspective, building an understanding of the world around you, your values are at the same time influencing your perspective and being influenced by it, in a feedback loop. This is why I put value and judgment together.

    ----

    I contend that valuing is a exclusively mental process because in observing nature I see a such desperation to live, as opposed to not live, that from the simplest to the most complex forms of life when given the choice of living vs dying, life is the undeniable choice, against all odds, against all struggle.

    Have you seen a sapling growing right on top of concrete? It finds a little crack in which to put a root, and it grows stronger and bigger and pushes the concrete out of its way.

    There is a common language between humans and trees. The language of survival.
    There are no nihilist trees as far as I am concerned, but why does a tree put effort into living, as opposed to not? Why does it reach for light, why does it direct its roots to where there is more water? It may not have a nervous system, but it wants things. It wants to live. I can imagine things as such.

    You could accuse me here of anthropomorphizing a tree, but aren't you also antropomorphizing the requirements for value, saying that it requires a nervous system etc?

    Also, when you define strict rules for an entity to meet in order to be able to value, you approach that strictly rational point of view that Nietzsche so strongly criticized in Decartes... the institutionalized mainstream, objectvist, it-is-as-it-is, detached from the body type of mentality, heavily relying on the higher faculties of this mysterious consciousness thing... that materialists like Rosa can't even acknowledge, but that we base our lives on.

    If you want to agree with Nietzsche on truth as a perspective or as an incomplete piece of the truth, you are forced to allow for more possibilities.

    Now you are going to say that that that changes nothing, has no impact in our realty, that it is so far removed from humanity that it is not worth considering... BUT

    Nietzschean metaphysics, if you can call it that, in my opinion is all about that. Not necessarily to make sweeping statements about the fabric of space-time, but to cause key switches to ones way of thinking to allow for a a broader perspective. When we compare ourselves to other living organisms, we know a lot about how we differ, but very little about how we don't. Maybe underneath all of these mental constructs, we really are all the same.

    Perhaps understanding trees would help us to better understand life in general, and thus gain a more comprehensive knowledge of ourselves, maybe we'd feel less disconnected, more at peace with our nature... perhaps not... but to be able to wonder is the purpose of metaphysics... it is a gay science, if you will. For all the rest, we have physics.

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Zoots Allures on Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:38 pm



    _________________
    soundcloud
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 757
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Satyr on Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:59 pm

    1+1 = 2 is logical because it remains true to its starting premises which is the '1'....and the '0'.
    The one does not exist in the world...it is an idea.
    An abstraction.
    Nobody can point to a singularity, a complete, indivisible, whole.
    The one the whole is a product of the mind.
    An abstraction - simplification/generalization.

    If we take the concept literally, and not figuratively, we fall into error, manifesting in linguistic paradoxes and conundrums.

    There is no ONE anywhere except in the brain, as an idea. A very useful idea. A tool.
    The a priori is based on the neurological on/off function, resulting in binary logic...and in dualism.
    On = flow of neural energy through neural cell
    Off = no flow.
    These become the 1/0

    The noetic is founded on this simple binary system...so useful that we've built computers to mirror our brain functions.

    Consciousness is a continuous juxtaposition.
    A juxtaposition reveals divergence.
    Divergence produces a choice, a judgment.
    Value is in reference to a motive, an objective.
    There is no intrinsic value.
    If we use it metaphorically to mean 'energy' or dynamism, then they are using the word incorrectly....and they may be doing it intentionally, trying to imply, without having to justify it, that all is conscious...all is god, in Deus.
    But even if we use it to mean energy then the standard is a human measuring system.

    A judgment must be applied, or it remains theory.
    Better/worse only means something in relation to a goal, an objective. The objective is tested in world....you can value anything you like, but this does not mean it will result to good things when applied.

    What I value reveals what my intentions are, and that reveals who I want to become.

    Life does value, because ti has an objective.
    It values what helps it survive and grow.

    Life-less matter cannot and does not value.
    The word used to refer to unconscious processes is insanity...and hides a motive.
    I explained one way matter can organize into complexity which requires no judgment, no consciousness, no intent, no motive.

    How does a plant judge?
    Precedent. What worked is repeated.
    DNA is memory used to juxtapose, and direct itself.
    Only life has memory.
    There is conscious, lucid memory, and there is unconscious memory.


    Nietzsche is not a god.
    Not everything he said is automatically correct. He was not an infallible demigod.
    His criticism of Darwin stands as one of his follies.  

    The misuse of language is a ploy to exploit and to manipulate.
    To correct or test your language, reconnect it to the observable.


    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Zoots Allures on Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:25 pm



    _________________
    soundcloud
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 757
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Satyr on Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:35 pm



    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Zoots Allures on Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:48 pm



    _________________
    soundcloud
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 757
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Satyr on Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:54 pm



    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 757
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Satyr on Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:13 pm



    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Magnus Anderson

    Posts : 58
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Magnus Anderson on Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:36 am


    Dear Zoot,

    Here's the problem with vocaroo-based forum discussion: it provides no overview. I have to click on the link, go to the new tab and then I have to skip through the audio in order to get a basic idea of what you're trying to say. That's too much effort . . . but I did listen to it anyways, and my response is as follows: no, philosophy is not merely intellectual, it is cutting-edge. Right? It gives birth to disciplines and categories.

    Thanks for your time,
    Magnus
    avatar
    witchdoctor

    Posts : 89
    Join date : 2018-02-13

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by witchdoctor on Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:04 am

    @Zoot

    I grant you that evaluating inductive and deductive reasoning are judgments.

    However, I find that that further strengthens the position that values and judgments are not separate, that all judgments are valuing.
    If not so, if some judgments were up to just pure logical reasoning, how are you able to explain that different people arrive at different conclusions?

    If someone comes to you and says 2 + 2 !=4 because numbers are a human convention, isn't that an application of value? How does one even come to accept that model to begin with? How can you separate from value the acceptance or lack thereof of mathematics as a model, or acceptance of free will versus determinism?

    When you got to talking about bears vs giants it seems you began to agree with this, by describing a judgment bias....

    ----

    There seemed to have been some confusion as you were wording out your thoughts.
    You say that evaluate = judge, but that is not the same as "valuating".
    It seems to me that either the word "valuate" does not exist at all, or it does but it means exactly the same as evaluate. But then, later you said that value is an evaluation... They're the same but different...
    In any case, it appears that you are going through lengths attempting to present a distinction that doesn't exist.

    ---

    You say that there is an anthropomorphizing fallacy in attributing value to other organisms, but its quite the contrary. There is an anthropomorphizing fallacy in making the phenomena of valuing out to be exclusive in humans, like a magical thing that exists just in this one magical animal... for the exclusive reason that it is able to speak and be understood by members of its own species!

    "All human behavior is orchestrated by cognitive impulses"
    Sure. I'll allow for that, but then, the same applies to other animals as well. Why not? If even human instincts are cognitive, there should be no difference.

    You say: "Humans are mechanisms too, but there's a kind of superimposed quality that emerges from a combination of intentionality in language".
    Three comments out of this.
    1.The ability to profess intentionality by means of language does show proof of a valuing, but the lack of that ability does not prove inability to value.
    2. Your inability to perceive intention in an action does not mean that the action was unintentional.
    3. There are ways other than spoken language to express intention.

    You say: "the meaning of the word is defined by language, and the explanation is provided by the language"... what about the action? Action is self-evident, and the preceeding actions are an indication of the process for making a decision toward that action.

    Would that mean that prehistoric humanoids with basically the same phisiological construct as the homo sapiens, same impulses, same instincts, very similar brain, who could hunt, forage and gather, but with a much more rudimentary capacity for language, was unable to value, since it could not express intention?

    Would that mean that you can't proof valuing in a person who speaks only chinese?

    A dog doesn't know it's jumping in the water because it's fun and awesome? What about this dog? It might consume treats and beef as an entirely mechanistic action dictated by its survival needs, but this dog in particular is wilfuly resisting its desire to eat treats. It does not share our language, but you could say that it values food, but it has placed the approval by his very sexy owner at a higher value than food.



    --------

    The way you read my final sentence showed your bias towards words like "feeling connected" and "at peace with our nature".
    You must have imagined a picture of a tree hugging commune of people and animals, eating tofu and smelling bad.
    To me, to be in peace with our nature is to understand the brutality and ultimate insignificance of it.

    My outlook does not change Nietzsche's picture of the universe. It is enriched by it. I don't mean that by connecting with other living things we would seek out to live in harmony with them, in some sort of utopia. Not harmony, what I desire is balance. That implies "checks and balances", a chain in which one power is limited by another, and that therefore implies both creation and destruction.

    What I was trying to say is that once you are able to think outside of the human box, not only see the parts of you that are in other living things, but also see which parts of them compose you, when you picture yourself an animal, you connect with that reality in more intense way. You see at the same time your importance and your insignificance. You momentarily snap out of this schizophrenic mode of living and thinking as bees, when you are in fact an ape.

    I agree that the universe is essentially meaningless and the totality of the system shows that there is no value, but hold on there, iambiguous...  that is what creates the setting for me as an individual to declare that my values are the most important values in all of the universe. It gives me the knowledge that there is no other value out there that by right is higher or more important than mine, and therefore gives me freedom to exercise and enforce them by whichever means are in my power.

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Zoots Allures on Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:37 pm



    _________________
    soundcloud
    avatar
    witchdoctor

    Posts : 89
    Join date : 2018-02-13

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by witchdoctor on Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:26 am

    I understood the distinction you are making, and I stand corrected:
    I believe that our disagreement was based on my not acknowledging that the reasoning itself is a judgment (as in when I stated that accepting a fact is not a judgment, post #26).
    If I make that correction, I think that you will find that you are in agreement with the remainder.
    Indeed, if it is to be done correctly, that process should not have value applied to it.
    Thus I agree that a pure rational judgment does not involve any valuing. Shouldn't involve any valuing, in any case. When valuing becomes involved in a reasoning, that is when  a bias can be formed and lead to error.

    Returning to my original post:

    witchdoctor wrote:Therefore valuing can't 'give rise' to ~*the truth*~, but valuing/judging, as the culmination of all sensorial processing, is the fundament of the only truth one can reach.
    One's own truth, which is merely a perspective.

    I still want to keep valuing and jugging together in that sentence because judgments are seldom as simple as accepting that 1 + 1 = 2. The more variables that are added, and the more complicated the concepts, the more the lines between value and judgment become fuzzy  even though they are not supposed to, and because of that feedback loop of valuing influencing perception which I mentioned before, for practical purposes it is difficult to separate the two. Specially on matters that are not scientifically verifiable, subjective, or strictly theoretical.

    It is an important distinction to make though, and I appreciate your insistence on that point.

    witchdoctor wrote:
    Thus I grant that there is an important relationship between value and truth, but not between value and ~*the truth*~, and for that reason I agree that this doesn't ground anything

    For example, a man who states that the earth is flat despite all evidence to support that it is spherical. He has arrived to a wrong conclusion due to his intellectual shortcomings, to "being an idiot" I suppose, but what is underlying this shortcoming is a belief system. The reliance which he gives to his own vision when looking at the horizon and seeing that it seems flat is placed above the scientific explanation. That is an example of value interfering with a judgment, and of how valuing doesn't ground or substantiate any assertion about the physical world.


    Judgment is invariably loaded with bias because of our relationship with value.
    I still stand by that.

    I believe this wraps up the value vs fact subject, but do tell me if there is still any part of this not sitting well with you.

    I'll post about value and language separately.
    avatar
    witchdoctor

    Posts : 89
    Join date : 2018-02-13

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by witchdoctor on Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:32 pm

    Zoot, transcripted wrote:
    kid never learned the word value, performs all kinds of activities that demnstrate him wanting or not wanting things.... demonstrates a behaviour that is indicative of hm wanting something. Someone walks up to him and says "you must value that". Now what does that mean to the kid? He doesn't know what that word means. now, when someone explains to the kid what the word means, then he associates the meaning of the activity to the meaning of the word... but he doesn't need to know the word to know the activity, and he doesn't need to know it is valuing. All he knows is that he wants something, that he has this compulsion to try to attain something. When he disvalues something, all he knows is that he wants to avoid it, but he doesn't know that that's called valuing.


    Is that not valuing then? If it is a phenomena that is physiological and psychological and observable, does it matter what you call it?... Does calling it "valuing" or "existimandum" or "jiàzhí pínggū" change the fact that it exists, that the boy feels it, that it guides his direction and helps shape his perspective?

    Zoot, transcripted wrote:
    so when an animal who didn't have the word, didn't understand the meaning of the word, may very well act in a valuing way to us, but wouldn't understand it in the same way that we understand it through the shared language.

    Does that mean that the physiological/psychological phenomena of valuing is not occurring?

    Zoot, transcripted wrote:
    You say "the ability to profess intentionality does not show proof of valuing"
    Sure it does, because when anybody acts intentionally towards an end, unless they are masochists then they are doing it because they want to, they think they need to. Doesn't matter if they're wrong, they are compelled to do it and that is valuing.
    You misread me Smile
    I said the ability to profess intentionality does show proof valuing, but the inability to profess intentionality does not show disproof it.

    You continue:
    Zoot, transcripted wrote:
    again, the kid who doesn't know the word valuing may be demonstrating a behavior which they are compelled to want something, and they know they want it, and they're also intending on wanting it. So they go hand-in-hand. Intentional behavior and knowledge of the meaning of value in the shared language inscribed to the behavior go hand-in-hand.
    Why?

    Zoot, transcripted wrote:
    ... if one has neither, then one cannot be said to be valuing.
    What if one has just the phenomena part, but not the language part? I am struggling to understand what you understand to be the importance of language in the valuing process.

    Every time you act towards an end you value it
    Except, I suppose, when they don't speak English?

    Zoot, transcripted wrote:
    "your inability to perceive intention in an action does not mean the action is unintentional" Uh, that's kind of tricky, man... That's like a chalmer's p-zombie argument. I mean, I don't know what behaviours are analogous to my own with a shared language speaker, but I would make the comparisson and say this person is acting similar to me so he might be doing the same thing that I'm doing, he may be acting intentionally, unless he's a p-zombie, in which case he's a robot, and he's just acting automically.

    Sure, you can create that explanation, but it is no proof.

    Zoot, transcripted wrote:
    "there are ways other than spoken language to express intention" Yeah, I mean I've said that before when animals navigate or orientate themseves and negotiate an environment, they, it's not quite intention, but it's not arbitrary action either. It's goal-oriented, but to call it intentional is to ascribe to it all kinds of qualities characteristic in structures of consciousness"

    So?
    Animals have a language among their own species. They may very well be communicating value to one another.
    Chinese people communicate value to one-another all the time, I assume. I understand them about as well as I do dogs.

    Zoot, transcripted wrote:
    "the action is self evident" Is it? what about with a zombie? You've got a mechanical android, that's acting just like you but it's totally unconscious.
    If you put a fresh brain on top of a zombie's head and say don't eat it! Will it ever learn to not eat it? If you tell a computer programmed with if(1){print "ON"}; else {print"OFF} to always print "ON" and you'll give it more RAM, will it ever print "ON" for 0?

    Similarly with dogs learning to do things to please their owners. Isn't negative and positive reinforcement a means by which one acquires values?

    Anyway... this goes on in slightly different forms for each iteration, but there is a distinction you are making with language and sticking to it, that I struggle to see because it is difficult to accept that a natural phenomena does not exist unless a human ape gives it a name.

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Zoots Allures on Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:00 pm

    Sorry andy, I forgot about you. Your question to me about philosophy is answered quite adequately by Peter Hacker.
    (wtf kind of name is "Peter Hacker", anyway? I bet he got a lotta shit in school for having that name.)

    "For two and a half millennia some of the best minds in European culture have wrestled with the problems of philosophy. If one were to ask what knowledge has been achieved throughout these twenty-five centuries, what theories have been established (on the model of well-confirmed theories in the natural sciences), what laws have been discovered (on the model of the laws of physics and chemistry), or where one can find the corpus of philosophical propositions known to be true, silence must surely ensue. For there is no body of philosophical knowledge. There are no well-established philosophical theories or laws. And there are no philosophical handbooks on the model of handbooks of dynamics or of biochemistry. To be sure, it is tempting for contemporary philosophers, convinced they are hot on the trail of the truths and theories which so long evaded the grasp of their forefathers, to claim that philosophy has only just struggled out of its early stage into maturity.... We can at long last expect a flood of new, startling and satisfying results -- tomorrow.

    One can blow the Last Trumpet once, not once a century. In the seventeenth century Descartes thought he had discovered the definitive method for attaining philosophical truths; in the eighteenth century Kant believed that he had set metaphysics upon the true path of a science; in the nineteenth century Hegel convinced himself that he had brought the history of thought to its culmination; and Russell, early in the twentieth century, claimed that he had at last found the correct scientific method in philosophy, which would assure the subject the kind of steady progress that is attained by the natural sciences. One may well harbour doubts about further millenarian promises."


    _________________
    soundcloud

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Zoots Allures on Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:13 pm



    _________________
    soundcloud

    Sponsored content

    Re: Examining Value Ontology

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:30 am