chieveboy:


...or that since you couldn't address my response to you, you brought this angle as your classic withdrawal measures.

Else, I cannot see how objectivity is established exclusive to observers.

By the way do you know what is purtanism?

Right. So you are advocating a solipsistic position. That's fine and I told you I don't argue with solipsistic positions, it's pointless imo.

No I don't know what purtanism is.

chieveboy:


Very well, even though I'm surprised you're asking this.

Example: Dangote cement is agreed to be a cement product with distinct quantity and quality. Left to erstwhile definitions, that product is Objectively Dangote Cement.

Why? Because of its quantity and quality (compositions, branding etc). This is the yardstick for establishing a global on the objectivity of Dangote Cement.


Not going too far, if I can't see the qualities (because I am visually impaired), I am not able to join the group of those who say Dangote Cement is objectively Dangote Cement. My handicap prevents me from that agreement.


Since no two people are alike psycho-biologically, it means we can possible never observe anything the same way. This is more true given the fact that even what we thought were seeing isn't entirely what is there to see, for us to delimit the bounds of its reality and existence.

So we merely agree to work with what we are and have for the sake of 'peace' and order to reign. We can't kill ourselves...



If i stated what you quoted here, this must be a mistake. I must have meant "perception is influenced by subjective dynamics" or so. This is in line with even my original argument from the beginning.

Look at the attached image, it is the same spider we all thought we objectively agreed is a spider. If you send someone this image and say it's a spider, they may beg to differ

It's not through the mere agreement of the non visually impaired that has determined the quality of dangote cement ,but through an objective scientific process called quality control used in testing the products before it's released to the market .

So whether you can see the cement with your eyes or not doesn't count for anything . You only confirmed the quality ,that's already established , when you use it.

The product has been independently confirmed to be of a particular kind of quality . It has nothing to do with any kind of subjective collective agreement .


You "re creating confusion @ cheiveboy . You op doesn't agree with what you "re saying after it.

LordReed:


Right. So you are advocating a solipsistic position. That's fine and I told you I don't argue with solipsistic positions, it's pointless imo.

Fine.

No I don't know what purtanism is.

Good. This is me declaring the objectivity of whatever purtanism is. Cheers!

chieveboy:



Good. This is me declaring the objectivity of whatever purtanism is. Cheers!

The word "puritanism" does not exist.
It has no shape or Color, It's just a symbol representing something.

Maynman:

The word "puritanism" does not exist.
It has no shape or Color.

LoL tell us more

chieveboy:


LoL tell us more

The “name” for anything is an abstract concept.

Maynman:


The “name” for anything is an abstract concept.

..which is further agreed and accepted by the users and mentioners of that name to form an object or instance of objectivity

chieveboy:


..which is further agreed and accepted by the users and mentioners of that name to form an object or instance of objectivity

Exactly, so, The word "puritanism" does not exist.
It has no shape or Color.

Who are the users and mentioners?

Maynman:

Exactly, so, The word "puritanism" does not exist.
It has no shape or Color.

Who are the users and mentioners?

Those who will later decide to name one thing or the other "puritanism". This can be an invention or a future-occurring concept.

The catch: one or more persons must decide a level of objectivity. This is what my friend here fail to see.

chieveboy:


Those who will later decide to name one thing or the other "puritanism". This can be an invention or a future-occurring concept.

The word "puritanism" is already used as a symbol for some people representing something, it's here already.

The future does not exist, there's only Now.

chieveboy:


The catch: one or more persons must decide a level of objectivity. This is what my friend here fail to see.

The persons will use their subjectivity to decide the objectivity.
Subjectivity implies Objectivity, and vice versa.

Maynman:

The persons will use their subjectivity to decide the objectivity.
Subjectivity implies Objectivity, and vice versa.

Okay, I will insult you small

This is the first time you have really showed us you have 'number 6'. Impressive!

Lordreed, triplechoice

The stone the builders have rejected o...
Mayman has cracked the code for you guys.

chieveboy:


Okay, I will insult you small

This is the first time you have really showed us you have 'number 6'. Impressive!

Lordreed, triplechoice

The stone the builders have rejected o...
Mayman has cracked the code for you guys.

The joke is on you, you are in prison and you THINK you are free.

Maynman:

The word "puritanism" is already used as a symbol for some people representing something, it's here already.

The future does not exist, there's only Now.

It's "purtanism" not 'puritanism', check well.

chieveboy:


It's "purtanism" not 'puritanism', check well.

They are symbols representing something. Your mind already knows what I was saying, you are not your mind

chieveboy:


Ah, and I will really love to hear your views on the yardsticks aused to determine Objectivity. I will do this popcorn in hand.

Cc lordreed.

Anyone,who handles, without any form of protection , a high tension cable carrying electricity, will surely be electrocuted .Not "agreeing "won't save you .

I have just given you something to work with to get your answer yourself .

Maynman:

The joke is on you, you are in prison and you THINK you are free.

Like seriously you got it spot on. I am not joking.

People use their eyes, ears, noses, skins and brains to perceive whatever is branded as 'Objective'.

Their eyes, ears, noses, etc are all subjective paraphernalia.

So I am not actually kidding you, I meant you are right.

chieveboy:


Like seriously you got it spot on. I am not joking.

People use their eyes, ears, noses, skins and brains to perceive whatever is branded as 'Objective'.

Their eyes, ears, noses, etc are all subjective paraphernalia.

So I am not actually kidding you, I meant you are right.

Boy, you need, eyes, ears, noses, skins and brains to perceive REALITY, without it you cannot.

Close your eyes and think of a color that has not existed before...

chieveboy:


Okay, I will insult you small

This is the first time you have really showed us you have 'number 6'. Impressive!

Lordreed, triplechoice

The stone the builders have rejected o...
Mayman has cracked the code for you guys.

Are you sure you understand what he explained ?

Maynman:

Boy, you need, eyes, ears, noses, skins and brains to perceive REALITY, without it you cannot.

Close your eyes and think of a color that has not existed before...

@cheiveboy. See what I mean? . You failed to grasp what he meant the first time

triplechoice:


Anyone,who handles, without any form of protection , a high tension cable carrying electricity, will surely be electrocuted .Not "agreeing "won't save you .

I have just given you something to work with to get your answer yourself .

Agreed, the drift (a very big one) is: this electrocution measured let's say in 50kw will register and be experienced differently relative to body-mass, bio-electric state of the cells, etc.

chieveboy:


Agreed, the drift (a very big one) is: this electrocution measured let's say in 50kw will register and be experienced differently relative to body-mass, bio-electric state of the cells, etc.

The difference is not the relevant thing here but the fact that anyone who handles it has an experience of it as proof of it's existence .

triplechoice:


@cheiveboy. See what I mean? . You failed to grasp what he meant the first time

Actually he reenforced my opinion that all what we label as objective is merely a collective agreement to label them so even though they actually are not objective in the very intent of the word and the truer state (visual, auditory, etc).

I just did an experiment on Lordreed with "purtanism" which isn't anything that we agreed is named so. It proves that a collection of subjectives needs to make an "aproval" and "acceptance" for anything to be objective


Now, when we perceive colors, visually we are not seeing the entirety of the color spectrum (thanks to the limits of our visual range), but to move on with life, we simply accept that the range of green our eyes see is the objective green. This buttress my initial hypothesis that " objectivity is merely an agreement to accept that objectivity" (though not true).

So objectivity relies on the subjective which often isn't perfect as in the case of zooming into a spider to see it eyes as earlier attached.

chieveboy:





Now, when we perceive colors, visually we are not seeing the entirety of the color spectrum (thanks to the limits of our visual range), but to move on with life, we simply accept that the range of green our eyes see is the objective green.

Without eyes, there will be no light or darkness and the spectrum of colors.
Without eyes, sun will not be light.
Without eardrums there will no sound.

You are mixing Eckankar tales with science, I'd advise you do your research beyond Eckankar and go to the East where it was taken from.


What's the origin of "Aum", it's better you listen to it than shout it, guess they didn't teach you that.

You need your 5 SENSES to perceive Reality, this is reality, there's no other one.

triplechoice:
The difference is not the relevant thing here but the fact that anyone who handles it has an experience of it as proof of it's existence .

Were not arguing existence, were talking of objectivity.

Objectivity as defined talks about being true regardless of the subjective.

My argument is: if so, nothing is objective because as far as a human is concerned, he must use his senses (relative to it's well being, worldview etc) to perceive the so-called objective.

This leaves us with no generally exact result of perception and experiencing but an agreement to label something as objective.

This is what we did with legal tenders.

Maynman:

Without eyes, there will be no light or darkness and the spectrum of colors.
Without eyes, sun will not be light.
Without eardrums there will no sound.

You are mixing Eckankar tales with science, I'd advise you do your research beyond Eckankar and go to the East where it was taken from.


What's the origin of "Aum", it's better you listen to it than shout it, guess they didn't teach you that.

You need your 5 SENSES to perceive Reality, this is reality, there's no other one.

Lol, it comes and goes at will ni?

chieveboy:


Lol, it comes and goes at will ni?

You're in prison and you THINK you are free.
Your one answer will lead to thousands of other questions, vicious circle of a fool

Maynman:

Without eyes, there will be no light or darkness and the spectrum of colors.
Without eyes, sun will not be light.
Without eardrums there will no sound.

Interesting. Have you heard about the eyes not actually what is used to 'see'?

chieveboy:


Interesting. @ triplechoice

A blind man has not seen darkness and light before, and no matter the symbols and concept you use, he will never understand it, you know why?
He is missing an Organ.

chieveboy:


Interesting. Have you heard about the eyes not actually what is used to 'see'?

What sees if not eyes?
Saying "my eyes are seeing" is waste of words.

chieveboy poft 99ooo6oIst=126532678:


Fine.


Good. This is me declaring the objectivity of whatever purtanism is. Cheers!

Yeah whatever purtanism is, if it exists then its existence is objective. We can say this about anything we are yet to discover. It's not the gotcha you think it is.

NO.
GOD CREATED US SELFISH THAT WE MAY SEEK HIM AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH CHRIST JESUS.