I wanted to ask your opinions on the following phrase:
“Because I objectively know that I am subjective, I objectively know that I am objective. “
does it make more sense as is, or as:
“Because I objectively know that I am subjective, I subjectively know that I am objective.“
I feel the former to be correct, let me know your thoughts
The dichotomous nature of the phrasing is a bit tricky to parse in either form; that said the former lends more clarity.
I would rephrase as:
Because knowing is an objective phenomenon, I can be sure I exist-- though because I am a subjective viewer, I can only know I am objectively existing through my subjective lens-- and thus it is an inference, but one that has no other explanation.
Dig the proof format!
Well said! It aligns well with my own musing, and is very clean.
This next question is one I don't have an answer for;
What can be known about the decision making, of one seeking truth?
Id est, if an AI asks itself, what is true, is there any difference between its asking, and ours?(assuming 'we' are 'more real' than an AI, because the AI has been 'hard wired' to ask this question)
Put another way, what can we know about the validity of they that decide that they exist by virtue of their questions?
Do they simply exist(their existence proven by their subjectivity, in relation to a 'greater' objectiviy) or is there any consideration or qualification for its validity?
Is wonder always wonder, or is a machine prohibited from wonder?
Fun first discussion.
The question asks “Name something that you can be sure is true.”
“Name something that you subjectively are sure is objective”
Without allowing any “subjective personalization” of “true”, the question is impossible to answer meaningfully except as below:
The only true answer to the impossible question is
“I am sure it is true that the subjective cannot objectively know.”
(Though a viewpoint of “objective reality” can be theoretically described, it can only be partially experienced through the limited senses and mental capacity of the experiencer. In some examples, it may be very closely experienced, but can never be fully experienced because the experiencer is by definition “not one with” the known and so that degree of separation will always exist at the very least.)
Taken a step further reads:
“Name something that you can be sure is true.”
“I objectively know that I cannot subjectively know objectivity”
“Because I objectively know that I cannot subjectively know objectivity, I am sure it is true that subjectivity exists.”
“Because I objectively know that I cannot objectively know objectivity, I am sure it is true that objectivity exists.”
“Because I objectively know that I cannot objectively know objectivity, I am sure it is true that I am subjective.”
“Because I objectively know that I subjectively know something objective, I am sure it is true that I am.”