Member Discussions

However you're correct in that reason could exist.

No, you could say that the concept of reason exists, but not reason itself.

I guess stupidity runs in the family. My wife has a bachelors degree in Sociology, and believe you me there are both subjective and objective research methodologies, both focusing on individuals.

1) I have a bachelors in CS and Math, while he has a bachelors in EE, and is finishing up his masters in CS this coming year. If only stupidity ran in more families ;)

2) Bad analogy Yui. Bad Bad BAD analogy.

But, for the time being, let's assume that she's correct. Your wife just destroyed your previous arguments.

Yui
And you originally wrote:

So where's the line between retarded, and a slow learner? Since it's completely objective, that line is easily distinguished, right?

You're missing my point. I simply can't tell you that particular line, because I'm not an expert in the field you're querying me about. The lines that have been drawn may or may not be arbitrary. You believe that I want something subjective because a small distance from that line on either side is not observable and thus not objective, but this is not the reality of my request. I'll reiterate: My request is for the objective reason behind why this line is drawn where it is. This means I'm looking for the observable parts that we can present factually, not the subjective parts that make up the small distances in between. The line is clearly not drawn there because the state of existing for 15 years causes a lack of wisdom.

Now that sounds a lot like a qualitative request, which is subjective, which was *my* point previously(and Muir's, which you chose to ignore). Whenever you try to classify a continuous phenomenon in a discrete way, you run into problems. ie, we're drawing this line and saying everyone above is alright, and everyone below is retarded.

Intelligence is a continuous phenomenon. Our system of keeping track of age, is a discrete phenomenon. ie, your method is qualitative, the current method is quantitative.



Now lest this turn into an appeal to anonymous authority, I could just refute you the old fashioned way. You've proven yourself incredibly inept with the dictionary so far, and I don't expect things to change now. So I'd like you to point out where spending time on the individual rules out any notion of objectivity. It's only prudent if you'd like to actually backup your claims for once.

Let me restate that, since you obviously misunderstood(hopefully not intentionally).

Anytime you decide something based upon each individual, it's a subjective decisions. ie, it's based upon the subject. Anytime you *don't* base that decision on the individual, it's objective, ie, you're objectifying them. And by individual, I mean something that is *unique* to that individual, such as intelligence.

Anytime you decide something based upon each individual, it's a subjective decisions. ie, it's based upon the subject. Anytime you *don't* base that decision on the individual, it's objective, ie, you're objectifying them. And by individual, I mean something that is *unique* to that individual, such as intelligence.

No no no no! That's absolutely incorrect. Objectivity is only dependent on the observer and the context (environment).

So, for example, intelligence can be objectively assessed, and it does depend on the subject of the observation (that's where the variance in intelligence is, after all)! The problem is that as yet there's no way for the observer to make this assessment by some absolute criteria rather than using their personal judgement (opinion) and therefore the assessment is subjective to the observer.

Simplified, a very smart person may consider an average-intelligence person to be stupid whereas a less-intelligent person will consider that same average person to be very smart. (In the real world this particular problem is more succint: what is intelligence -is being good at math intelligence? Is being good at languages more intelligent than being good at math? etc.)

.

muir wrote:

Well, that's not entirely true; there's really no common concept of 'reason', everyone has their own idea of what's reasonable (most of whom are of course wrong since I'm right). However you're correct in that reason could exist.

I don't think it has to be a common concept for it to exist, just for its base definition to be agreed upon, and for those things to exist as a whole. And this is evidenced by its common usage and entry into the dictionary.

muir wrote:

You scold Genteel for Anonymous Authority and then you commit an Ad Hominem Circumstantial? Tsk, tsk :)

I was referring to my own argument's Anonymous Authority, although it works perfectly well to describe Genteel's. Although it's not much of an authority in his case.

But no, I would only be committing a fallacy if I had stated that my argument was justified because he was inept with the dictionary. Please note that every time I do this, I'm not using it to justify an argument, therefore it's not a logical fallacy. Like I said, it's just a little side-show for the kids.

Genteel wrote:

No, you could say that the concept of reason exists, but not reason itself.

It's now clear that you're not going to respond to my points or even attempt to justify your own. Rather, you're just going to repeat the same thing over and over again and hope someone believes you. Well good luck, but you've essentially lost this point if you can't respond in any substantial manner.

Genteel wrote:

Now that sounds a lot like a qualitative request...

Sorry, "sounds like" and "is" are two entirely different things. If it's a qualitative request, and not quantative, please prove it so rather than make the baseless assertions you're fond of.

Genteel wrote:

Anytime you decide something based upon each individual, it's a subjective decisions. ie, it's based upon the subject.

Individuals can be both subjects and objects. You're clueless. Even muir knows that.

No no no no! That's absolutely incorrect. Objectivity is only dependent on the observer and the context (environment).

And you can prove that assertion?



So, for example, intelligence can be objectively assessed, and it does depend on the subject of the observation (that's where the variance in intelligence is, after all)! The problem is that as yet there's no way for the observer to make this assessment by some absolute criteria rather than using their personal judgement (opinion) and therefore the assessment is subjective to the observer.

Exactly, it's subjective ;) Atleast we finally agree!



Simplified, a very smart person may consider an average-intelligence person to be stupid whereas a less-intelligent person will consider that same average person to be very smart. (In the real world this particular problem is more succint: what is intelligence -is being good at math intelligence? Is being good at languages more intelligent than being good at math? etc.)

And you've now explained why your previous suggestions are invalid. Thank you for playing.



It's now clear that you're not going to respond to my points or even attempt to justify your own. Rather, you're just going to repeat the same thing over and over again and hope someone believes you. Well good luck, but you've essentially lost this point if you can't respond in any substantial manner.

It's like talking to the retarded child. You have to repeat it over and over until they understand. Let me make it easier for you.


Yui, have you ever picked up an integer? Say, for example, the integer 1, or perhaps the integer -1.

You haven't? Why ever not? Oh, that's right, integer's don't actually *exist*, it's simply the *concept* of integer's that exist. They're an abstraction that we use to describe the world around us. This is a major reason why Mathematics is classified as a philosophy.


Sorry, 'sounds like' and 'is' are two entirely different things. If it's a qualitative request, and not quantative, please prove it so rather than make the baseless assertions you're fond of.


Anytime you try to put discrete values to a continuous phenomenon, it's necessarily going to be quantitative. ie, 'intelligence' is a continuous phenomenon, while 'retarded', 'below average', 'average', 'above average', and 'genius' are not. They are discrete steps.

ooh, but wait, I can play semantics too.


Now that is a qualitative request...


individuals can be both subjects and objects.

out of context. Allow me to quote myself:

And by individual, I mean something that is *unique* to that individual, such as intelligence.

I'm confident that it was simply a misunderstanding on your part. I wouldn't want to accuse of a strawman :)



Now go ask your wife for your next argument, only, tell her it needs to be better than the last!



PS
Muir, just ignore it, I do. All he's doing is making himself look like a jackass. I certainly don't want to be the one drops his self esteem any lower than it already is. Think about his wife, and the time she'll have to spend assuring him that he does, indeed, satisfy her ;)

Genteel wrote:

It's like talking to the retarded child. You have to repeat it over and over until they understand. Let me make it easier for you.

In your case that's all you do. You don't provide new information. You don't prove your assertions. You just fling them out as if they are true, repeating them if someone calls you on it. And when you do attempt to provide a proof, they're ridiculous. Like this one:

Genteel wrote:

Yui, have you ever picked up an integer? Say, for example, the integer 1, or perhaps the integer -1.

You haven't? Why ever not? Oh, that's right, integer's don't actually *exist*

You spoke too soon: Integers don't physically exist, but they do have existence! I have picked up integers before, and I stored them within bit buckets! If you want to disprove this, please show which of the criteria in the posted definition of reality that integers do not meet:

2. That which is real; an actual existence; that which is not imagination, fiction, or pretense; that which has objective existence, and is not merely an idea.

I submit that it meets all of them.

I wrote:

Sorry, 'sounds like' and 'is' are two entirely different things. If it's a qualitative request, and not quantative, please prove it so rather than make the baseless assertions you're fond of.

Genteel replied:

Anytime you try to put discrete values to a continuous phenomenon, it's necessarily going to be quantitative.

Agreed. But that still doesn't show how my request is qualitative.

Genteel wrote:

Now go ask your wife for your next argument, only, tell her it needs to be better than the last!

Sorry, my wife didn't provide me with any arguments. I simply her used as the vehicle to point out that studies can focus on the individual while being either objective or subjective. You must have conceded this point, since you never addressed it and instead tried to jump into some other argument.

Btw, you've been adressing her this entire time. My wife's name is 'Yui'.

(Comment added by unifex on Sun Jul 18 12:54:23 2004)

> I certainly don't want to be the one drops his self esteem
> any lower than it already is.

Oh dear me, is that why you've been holding back all the really good arguments and giving me all this crap that you can't prove?

You spoke too soon: Integers don't physically exist, but they do have existence! I have picked up integers before, and I stored them within bit buckets! If you want to disprove this, please show which of the criteria in the posted definition of reality that integers do not meet:

ROFLMAO.

You've held them in your hands? I must say, I'm surprised, I thought a bit bucket was a Data type(an abstract notion). I didn't realize you could physically handle them! A bit bucket is no more real than an integer.


Here's another example. Does infinity exist? We use it as a mathematical tool(the concept of inifinity), but does it exist?



that which is not imagination



let's look at the definition of imagination.


an act or process of forming a conscious idea or mental image of something never before wholly perceived in reality by the one forming the images (as through a synthesis of remembered elements of previous sensory experiences or ideas as modified by unconscious defense mechanisms); also : the ability or gift of forming such conscious ideas or mental images especially for the purposes of artistic or intellectual creation



But that still doesn't show how my request is qualitative.

I misspoke, what I *meant* to say is:

'anytime you try to put a discrete values to a continuous phenomenon, it's necessarily going to be qualitative'.


What separates a 3rd generation language from a 4th generation language?


Sorry, my wife didn't provide me with any arguments. I simply her used as the vehicle to point out that studies can focus on the individual while being either objective or subjective. You must have conceded this point, since you never addressed it and instead tried to jump into some other argument.

Now that's simply dishonest. Appeal to an Authority(your wife), when it's your words, isn't not an acceptable way to debate Yui.


Btw, you've been adressing her this entire time. My wife's name is 'Yui'.

Nay, I've been addressing you. Her name has absolutely nothing to do with it. Although, if you'd prefer that I talk with her, I'll be more than happy to give her my IM info ;) I'm sure she'll find it quite enjoyable.


Oh dear me, is that why you've been holding back all the really good arguments and giving me all this crap that you can't prove?


Oh dear me, is that why you didn't try to refute my claim that you can't satisfy your wife? ;)


Here, let me sum up your arguments:

'You're ignoring the points that you just replied to!'


:)

Replies in order of appearance.

'Fex:

Well, that's not entirely true; there's really no common concept of 'reason', everyone has their own idea of what's reasonable (most of whom are of course wrong since I'm right). However you're correct in that reason could exist.

I don't think it has to be a common concept for it to exist, just for its base definition to be agreed upon, and for those things to exist as a whole. And this is evidenced by its common usage and entry into the dictionary.

I disagree here. For an abstract to exist, I think it must be a common conception -like an integer: there's no room for interpretation. When there's variance in the interpretation of an abstract, we can say that the concept of reason exists.

Unifex:

You scold Genteel for Anonymous Authority and then you commit an Ad Hominem Circumstantial? Tsk, tsk :)

I was referring to my own argument's Anonymous Authority, although it works perfectly well to describe Genteel's. Although it's not much of an authority in his case.

But no, I would only be committing a fallacy if I had stated that my argument was justified because he was inept with the dictionary. Please note that every time I do this, I'm not using it to justify an argument, therefore it's not a logical fallacy. Like I said, it's just a little side-show for the kids.

Ah, you are absolutely correct, I'm not sure what I read it to be originally. I do still maintain that you were committing Ad Hominem as you refuted his point by virtue of him having been wrong previously -although your argument was rather an insinuation than a direct one.

Genteel wrote:

No no no no! That's absolutely incorrect. Objectivity is only dependent on the observer and the context (environment).

And you can prove that assertion?

Take an ordinary red ball. In daylight, a normal person will see a red ball. In daylight, a colourblind person will see a green ball. At night, a normal person will see no ball. In all instances, though, the ball does exist and continues being red. The qualities of a subject are immutable. Objectivity is the perception of those qualities independently of the observer or the context (environment).

objectivity (dictionary.com)
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices [syn: objectiveness]

Genteel:

So, for example, intelligence can be objectively assessed, and it does depend on the subject of the observation (that's where the variance in intelligence is, after all)! The problem is that as yet there's no way for the observer to make this assessment by some absolute criteria rather than using their personal judgement (opinion) and therefore the assessment is subjective to the observer.

Exactly, it's subjective ;) Atleast we finally agree!

I never said intelligence were not subjective. My issue was that you claim that subjectivity means basing something on the individual qualities of the subject, which is completely wrong.

Genteel:

Yui, have you ever picked up an integer? Say, for example, the integer 1, or perhaps the integer -1.

You haven't? Why ever not? Oh, that's right, integer's don't actually *exist*, it's simply the *concept* of integer's that exist. They're an abstraction that we use to describe the world around us. This is a major reason why Mathematics is classified as a philosophy.

Something doesn't have to be physically present to exist. Furthermore, since an 'integer' is a non-interpretable concept (same for everyone), it exists as a direct abstraction, not as a concept.

Genteel:

Anytime you try to put discrete values to a continuous phenomenon, it's necessarily going to be quantitative. ie, 'intelligence' is a continuous phenomenon, while 'retarded', 'below average', 'average', 'above average', and 'genius' are not. They are discrete steps.

This is not necessarily correct. First of all, you can't put discrete values to a continuous phenomenon; that's an oxymoron. Secondly, it is not certain that intelligence is a continuous phenomenon.

Genteel:

Muir, just ignore it, I do. All he's doing is making himself look like a jackass.

I agree with him on this particular argument.

.

Genteel wrote:

Here's another example. Does infinity exist?

[Teacher] Genteel, we've got to talk about your latest Calculus test...
[Genteel] What's wrong with it?
[Teacher] Well you didn't answer any of the questions related to infinity. Is there something wrong? Your Literature teacher tells me you're not very perceptive when it comes to reading.
[Genteel] Infinity? That doesn't exist!
[Teacher] Neither does your scholarship after I fail you.
[Genteel] It doesn't exist! Why do you make me do problems that involve things that don't even exist!
[Teacher] But there's a reason, we use...
[Genteel] Ahh! Reason! There's another one that doesn't exist! Stop using these words, this isn't the land of fairy tales and make-believe!

Genteel continued:

We use it as a mathematical tool

There ya go, answered your own question. It exists as a mathematical tool. Maybe now you can pull your grades back up.

Genteel wrote:

let's look at the definition of imagination.

an act or process of forming a conscious idea or mental image of something never before wholly perceived in reality by the one forming the images (as through a synthesis of remembered elements of previous sensory experiences or ideas as modified by unconscious defense mechanisms); also : the ability or gift of forming such conscious ideas or mental images especially for the purposes of artistic or intellectual creation

To show how an integer is not imagination, you now must prove that integers were never wholly perceived in reality before they were formed by the imagineer. While I'm no expert on the history of such a basic mathematical concept, it seems logical to me that the concept of the integer was perceived in reality first via counting. "I've got two cows. I eat one, now how many cows do I have?". It was later simply formalized and labeled as such by mathematicians.

Genteel wrote:

I misspoke, what I *meant* to say is:

'anytime you try to put a discrete values to a continuous phenomenon, it's necessarily going to be qualitative'.

Then how do you explain spam filters or speech recognition software? Computers are incapable of performing subjective work, and they certainly work in discrete values. Yet they are perfectly capable of measuring analog data. Why do you suppose that is?

Genteel wrote:

Appeal to an Authority(your wife), when it's your words, isn't not an acceptable way to debate Yui.

Say this again. In English next time.

Genteel wrote:

Nay, I've been addressing you.

Well you haven't been using my name.

Genteel wrote:

Oh dear me, is that why you didn't try to refute my claim that you can't satisfy your wife? ;)

There's no need -- your wife knows very well how I satisfy women. OHH BURN.

muir wrote:

I disagree here. For an abstract to exist, I think it must be a common conception -like an integer: there's no room for interpretation. When there's variance in the interpretation of an abstract, we can say that the concept of reason exists.

Maybe we're arguing the same thing. I'm saying that something like an integer must have existed before the common conception was recognized. That is, you have two cows in the field, the number of which is an integer, before mathmeticians of old recognized this for what it was and labeled it as such.

muir wrote:

I do still maintain that you were committing Ad Hominem as you refuted his point by virtue of him having been wrong previously -although your argument was rather an insinuation than a direct one.

I think it's perfectly logical to refute the point that someone makes if that point is built up from previous points that were also refuted. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, eh?

muir wrote:

First of all, you can't put discrete values to a continuous phenomenon; that's an oxymoron.

You can for the purposes of measurement. It's like how FLOAT_EPSILON works. You take your margin of significance or error and set up a boundary. You can then know when something crosses that boundary. That's why a good age-based criteria will have a sliding scale of punishment rather than an outright brand.

There ya go, answered your own question. It exists as a mathematical tool. Maybe now you can pull your grades back up.


gotcha.


Most people mistakenly think of infinity as a thing, which it's not. It's not even a mathematical entity. It's nothing more than a concept.


To show how an integer is not imagination, you now must prove that integers were never wholly perceived in reality before they were formed by the imagineer. While I'm no expert on the history of such a basic mathematical concept, it seems logical to me that the concept of the integer was perceived in reality first via counting. 'I've got two cows. I eat one, now how many cows do I have?'.

We may as well drop this line of thought Yui. It's becoming painfully obvious to me that you're entirely too ignorant of mathematics to understand my example.

It was later simply formalized and labeled as such by mathematicians.

No, Math is a philosophy, nothing more. To be formalized in mathematics means that it's proven within a system. That doesn't mean that the system coincides with our physical world(3 point geometry is a good example of this).

But you won't learn such things in Calculus, it takes a bit more learning before you start understanding it.


Then how do you explain spam filters or speech recognition software? Computers are incapable of performing subjective work, and they certainly work in discrete values. Yet they are perfectly capable of measuring analog data. Why do you suppose that is?

:)

Thank you Yui, you have just proven my point.
hint: mp3 recorded at a low bitrate.


Well you haven't been using my name.

And you haven't been using my name, or do you believe my parents named me Genteel?


There's no need -- your wife knows very well how I satisfy women.

Well, since you haven't even refuted my assertion, I'm going to assume that it's closer to the mark than you'd like. I bet your pet name is 'little Unifex' isn't it?

Or perhaps she's tired of the fact that you seem to be spending all of your time satisfying a woman who doesn't exist. I hear they're not so demanding, LMAO.

At night, a normal person will see no ball. In all instances, though, the ball does exist and continues being red.

does it really now? That's philosophy. If a tree falls in the forest, and noone hears it, does it make a sound? It certainly makes sound waves, but when do those sound waves become sound, as we understand it?

The ball does not continue to be red. That is only our perception of it. The best that can be said is that during x type of light, this type of wavelength is reflected off of the surface, during y type of light, a different wavelength is reflected off the surface. Because, really, what is red?


The next thing to ask is, does it exist if I can't perceive it with any of my senses? What if *noone* can perceive it with *any* senses?


All of these are philosophical questions.


Objectivity is the perception of those qualities independently of the observer or the context (environment).

You cannot observe something independantly of the observer. That's an oxymoron. The best we can do is *attempt* it, nothing more.


But really, this all goes along with what I've been saying. age doesn't involve human perceptions, so it's objective. ie, you're treating the person as an object.

How about we look up the word subjective(let's look at the other side of the coin)


1a)Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
1b)Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2)Moodily introspective.
3)Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4)Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5)Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6)Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7)Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
8)Relating to the real nature of something; essential.



All of these point to the fact that basing your decisions based upon individuals is subjective(particular to a given person).

And there you have it.




Something doesn't have to be physically present to exist. Furthermore, since an 'integer' is a non-interpretable concept (same for everyone), it exists as a direct abstraction, not as a concept.

Wrong. There are proofs out there proving that negative numbers are valid(they don't exist except as concepts). If integers were 'non-interpretable', then we wouldn't need these proofs, but the fact of the matter is that they exist *only* as tools within a philosophical system, nothing more. You can say the concept exists, but you can't claim that integer's themselves exist.




This is not necessarily correct. First of all, you can't put discrete values to a continuous phenomenon; that's an oxymoron. Secondly, it is not certain that intelligence is a continuous phenomenon.

So you've never seen a movie review where the movie is rated from 1 to 10?

You can, indeed, place discrete values to a continuous phenomenon, we do it all the time. The problem is that it's not always entirely accurate, or, the line isn't always as clear cut as it should be, but, in the end, it's all about interpretation, and we're free to interpret it however we want.




(Comment added by Genteel on Sun Jul 18 17:41:21 2004)

That's why a good age-based criteria will have a sliding scale of punishment rather than an outright brand.


There you go, wiggling about, changing your argument again! What happened to basing it on intelligence?

Genteel wrote:

Most people mistakenly think of infinity as a thing, which it's not. It's not even a mathematical entity. It's nothing more than a concept.

And it undeniably exists, or we wouldn't be able to use it in any useful manner.

Genteel wrote:

We may as well drop this line of thought Yui. It's becoming painfully obvious to me that you're entirely too ignorant of mathematics to understand my example.

Ah yes, it's the old "I realize how bad my argument is so I suggest we drop the subject" gambit.

Genteel wrote:

No, Math is a philosophy, nothing more.

Which is a nice observation, but it doesn't do anything to further your point. Care to actually apply it?

Genteel wrote:

To be formalized in mathematics means that it's proven within a system.

Yeah it's pretty tough to prove something that doesn't exist.

Genteel wrote:

That doesn't mean that the system coincides with our physical world(3 point geometry is a good example of this).

Which is only a problem if you think that the only things that exist coincide with the physical world. The only one that seems to have this hangup is you.

Genteel wrote:

:)

Thank you Yui, you have just proven my point.
hint: mp3 recorded at a low bitrate.

You must've misspoken again. I just refuted your point. It's too bad you can't offer any evidence to the contrary.

Genteel wrote:

And you haven't been using my name, or do you believe my parents named me Genteel?

No, but it's the name you login to this forum under, and that's enough for me.

I wrote:

There's no need -- your wife knows very well how I satisfy women.

Genteel replied:

...you seem to be spending all of your time satisfying a woman who doesn't exist.

For some reason that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

I wrote:

That's why a good age-based criteria will have a sliding scale of punishment rather than an outright brand.

Genteel wrote:

There you go, wiggling about, changing your argument again! What happened to basing it on intelligence?

Selecting an attribute of age-based criteria and calling it "good" does not contradict any of my previous claims. You're a fool if you think that statement constitutes a change in my argument. But I guess that's par for the course with you.

What happened to basing it on intelligence?

How about basing it on subjectivity and common sense.
Like...
'Hey Mr. McGreevy, your daughter is hot. Do you mind if I take her out and bang her until she's bow-legged?'

The ball does not continue to be red. That is only our perception of it. The best that can be said is that during x type of light, this type of wavelength is reflected off of the surface, during y type of light, a different wavelength is reflected off the surface. Because, really, what is red?

'Red' can also be defined as a particular wavelength of visible light and a 'red ball' as a ball the surface of which has the property of reflecting this particular wavelength. This property doesn't change in the absence of visible light, it is just unobservable.

You cannot observe something independantly of the observer. That's an oxymoron. The best we can do is *attempt* it, nothing more.

And that's not what I wrote: the perception of the qualities, not the observation itself, must be independent of the observer. See the definition of 'objectivity' I posted.

All of these point to the fact that basing your decisions based upon individuals is subjective(particular to a given person).

Right, but subjectivity and objectivity are qualities of the observer, not the subject as you're claiming.

Intelligence is subjective but not because it's a unique property of the subject: it's subjective because each observer has a different idea as to what intelligence is -or simplified, each observer will have a different idea as to how intelligent a given person is.

On the topic of discreteness, the mathematical definition states that it must be on a non-continuous scale; it's oxymoronic to say otherwise. I didn't say it wasn't done :)

.

Red' can also be defined as a particular wavelength of visible light and a 'red ball' as a ball the surface of which has the property of reflecting this particular wavelength. This property doesn't change in the absence of visible light, it is just unobservable.

It *can* be defined that way, but it isn't, and that's the point. Sound can be defined as a sound wave, but it isn't. It's our perception of that sound wave.


And that's not what I wrote: the perception of the qualities, not the observation itself, must be independent of the observer. See the definition of 'objectivity' I posted.

And I suppose I'll have to repeat myself. When you open your eyes in the morning, what you see is affected by *you*. You *cannot* separate them, the best you can do is try.

Right, but subjectivity and objectivity are qualities of the observer, not the subject as you're claiming.

Reread the definition of subjective that I posted.


Intelligence is subjective but not because it's a unique property of the subject: it's subjective because each observer has a different idea as to what intelligence is -or simplified, each observer will have a different idea as to how intelligent a given person is.

No, intelligence is subjective because everyone's intelligence is personal to them. It has nothing to do with the observer. IQ tests are subjective, whether or not there's an observer to see them take the test.

Age is not personal too them, most everyone makes it to the age of 15.



On the topic of discreteness, the mathematical definition states that it must be on a non-continuous scale; it's oxymoronic to say otherwise. I didn't say it wasn't done :)

Calculus does just that. It's only 'oxymoronic' when done in a system that can't handle it, ie, 'the real world'. Calculus handles it just fine via the concept of 'tending to infinity'(to simplify it).

And it undeniably exists, or we wouldn't be able to use it in any useful manner.

And I suppose that irrational numbers exist also, don't they? I challenge you to find a perfect unit circle[hint, PI is irrational, it can't be done]


Ah yes, it's the old 'I realize how bad my argument is so I suggest we drop the subject' gambit.

In a nutshell, yes. I've realized that speaking mathematics to someone who's uneducated in the subject is futile. I should have stuck to baby words.


Which is a nice observation, but it doesn't do anything to further your point. Care to actually apply it?

I've been applying it. That's why I think we should drop that line of thought. You obviously can't follow it because you don't have the education for it.


Yeah it's pretty tough to prove something that doesn't exist.

Again, Mathematics is a philosophy.



Which is only a problem if you think that the only things that exist coincide with the physical world. The only one that seems to have this hangup is you.


No, I'm not the only one that thinks this: the problem here is that you don't happen to be one of them ;)


You must've misspoken again. I just refuted your point. It's too bad you can't offer any evidence to the contrary.

Nope. spam filter's screw up, and so do voice recognition software. wav files are a really good example. It takes a continuous phenomenon(music), and chops it into timeslices. The more timeslices it keeps, the closer to the 'real thing' it sounds. As the number of times slices 'tend towards infinity', the closer to the actual music you get. The problem is that infinity doesn't actually exist, and since we don't have an infinite amount of memory, what you get is an approximation of the original.

It's the same concept as in math, the only difference is that since math is a philosophy, things such as 'tending towards infinity' are perfectly valid.


No, but it's the name you login to this forum under, and that's enough for me.

It took you 3 posts, but you got it!


For some reason that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Thank God I'm not married. I most certainly wouldn't want to be running around using my wife's name as my online nick(I keep my nuts between my legs, not in a glass jar beside the bed).

I really have no comments...

You're being completely nonsensical, I'm not going to continue this debate after this post (so you can have the last word).

You do not understand what subjectivity and objectivity mean and have no place arguing about this.

Genteel:

No, intelligence is subjective because everyone's intelligence is personal to them. It has nothing to do with the observer. IQ tests are subjective, whether or not there's an observer to see them take the test.

By the same logic, age is subjective because everyone's age is personal to them. That's utterly wrong.

You also don't seem to have the talent for abstract thinking: the 'observer' need not be a guy in a white jacket and glasses taking notes on a flipboard. When Jack takes an IQ test, the test can be thought of as being the observer as it tries, by whatever means it has, measure Jack's intelligence, and it does so subjectively based on whatever criteria it's been given to determine said intelligence. Indeed, Jack himself can be both the subject and observer!

Age is not personal too them, most everyone makes it to the age of 15.

That's completely inane. Most everyone also learns how to add integers, which is a sign of intelligence (in the grand universal scale where bacteria is also a lifeform).

Subjectivity and objectivity have nothing to do with an actual quality, they deal with the perception of that particular quality.

Using age and maturity as examples for Jack, both of which qualities are unique to him. Let's say Jack is 20.

Age is objective because regardless of the observer (i.e. regardless of who/what is thinking/looking/observing/surrounding Jack) Jack's 'age' is the same -different observers may give different names for the age, may have different units of measuring it and may give different meanings for different quantities of age, but to every single observer Jack has existed that same period of time that we as humans think of as age, specifically 20 years.

Maturity is subjective because the observer determines what 'maturity' is. The actual level of Jack's maturity is a constant value on some nonexistent maturity scale but a small child (who will probably not think in terms of maturity but will consider Jack to be a 'grown-up') thinks Jack is very mature, while one of Jack's classmates may consider him to be very immature. Jack probably thinks of himself as being fairly mature.

.

Here's a picture of Tyche from the early years. It wasn't long after this was taken that I discovered I had special powers. :-)

Ooh, you should use that as your avatar!

Age is objective because regardless of the observer {...]
I can so hear Einstein twisting in the grave again.

Uhoh, Muir thinks his test paper's are watching him *edges away*

Age is objective because everyone goes through it the exact same way, ie, a day at a time.

Intelligence is subjective because it's individual to that person. Not everyone has the same intelligence, or the same *type* of intelligence.

PS
I'd watch your clock's too. I hear they're *huge* gossips

There's been an awful lot of talk about intelligence here. Way too much for a thread about sex if you ask me. One might get the notion that intelligence or some aspect of it, maybe education, is something one might even consider measuring when deciding whom should have sex. To my mind this seems to be a dangerous notion as it has been my experience that there's not a lot of thought involved with sex anyway. And it might also be reasonably postulated that education is an evolutionary dead end so to speak, as highly educated populations tend to have negative birth rates.