What's the relationship between subjective and objective? Objective is basically just trying to find a way to describe things without decieving one's self, isn't it? Isn't it just taking into account the limitations of our senses and our ability to use logic and trying to go from there?
That is one application of the use objective, in this case "Trying to make sure ones knowledge is based upon objective principles. I was talking about subjective and objective
concepts, and how they are related - which is a slightly different question. Scientists are trying to do this when they claim minds are brain processes. They want to deal with the objective thing rather than the subjective one. But by simply assigning one to the other with an "=" doesn't even try explain the relationship between the two of them. It just substitutes one for the other without offering any explanation.
As far as I can tell, all your question breaks down to is "why is the universe the way it is?".
No, not one of my questions had anything to do with that. "The Universe" is an object, DJ. A big one, sure, but it is an object. All of my questions actually break down to "How is subjectivity related to objectivity", NOT "Why is this object the way it is?" In other words - the question you
want me to have asked is a question about objective things - because you stand some hope of applying scientific principlies if this is the case. But I did not ask that. I asked how subjective things relate to objective things. What's more - and everybody (including lifegazer, whilst he accused me of ignoring him) has studiously ignored it - I also said this:
The problem can be explained even more simply than above. It's about the relationship between subjective and objective which itself turns out to be a localised case of a more general relationship between all binary oppositions.
That relationship is this:
0 = 1 + -1.
The above statement is very simple indeed, yet almost everybody has chosen to ignore it. Lifegazer ignored it, and seemed confused that I wasn't defending idealism. Paul
completely ignored it, and made silly noises about how I was favouritising subjectivity. That is what lifegazer is doing, so perhaps I should just let Paul talk to lifegazer. At least then Paul would be challenging someone who really is an idealist.
Materialism fails to understand that this is a binary opposition and tries to solve it with:
0 = 1.
Idealism tries to solve it with:
0 = -1.
Dualism says something like:
1 + -1.
But the correct equation to represent a binary oppostion, all of them, is still:
0 = 1 + -1.
Not that that's not a big question, but why is the question "why do things that have minds have minds?" any more profound than "why does gravity exist?"?
In this particular case it is not. But then we are no closer to answering that question about gravity than we are to answering the one about subjectivity. Penrose has even suggested the two questions are related. Why gravity exists is also a deeply mysterious question. Especially since we cannot find the Higgs boson and that neutrinos have recently been demonstrated to have mass, contrary to the standard model.
