Why the vision argument is a very good one!

[Angrboda]

I am saying the brain from a biological perspective doesn't know the details to give us the exact accurate objective value to who we are. I think both you and Jo agreed with that, just don't agree we have an objective exact value, which I argue later why I believe is not a good view.

No, this is wrong. I can grant you that objective value exists (assuming the concept is coherent) without there needing to be a knower who possesses exact knowledge of who I am as a person, how patient, or intelligent, or loving I am. These "objective values" can exist and be directly if imperfectly apprehended by me without there needing to be some entity that knows the objective values of each of these traits. Objective value can exist in the world without your argument following necessarily from that fact by itself. Take the question of how intelligent I am (I will deal with love in the bottom half of this post). Now I've never taken an official I.Q. test, but I know from estimates based upon my SAT scores, as well as from online IQ tests that my quantifiable intelligence has remained fairly constant since high school. There is an objective fact of how intelligent I am, and it's based on the existence of objective facts about the world. Even if I were ignorant as to my actual measured IQ, I would still have plenty of directly accessible facts from which to infer an idea of how intelligent I am. These range from my grades in school, to my ability to best others in debate, as well as my ability to adapt successfully to novel, stressful situations. In that case, there is an objective fact of the matter, but my ability to form an imperfect representation of the exact value does not depend upon the mediation of some perfect knower to inform my representation. I can appeal to readily accessible facts of my past and present existence. So, assuming ex hypothesi that objective value exists doesn't get you to the conclusion that the existence of objective value requires a perfect knower as some sort of causal explanation for the imperfect representations of such in my mind.

The phrase objective value is itself ambiguous. If by value here you mean something akin to innate desirability, then objective value as a concept is incoherent. If by value here you mean instead simply that an objective property is quantifiable, then there is no need for a mediator between said 'values' and my apprehension of them. If you intend by objective value such things as my worth as a human being, then you are out of the realm of objective fact and into a sense of value which is less perceived than it is simply asserted, based on my own innate moral and political compass. Besides being incoherent as noted, again, my imperfect knowledge of the 'value' in question is based upon things to which I also have direct if imperfect access. I would like to recount an anecdote as an example to introduce the subject. One day in psychotherapy, I was telling a story about my family, and my therapist remarked about how our family is significant by virtue of the fact that we've spent so much time with them. That observation struck me, as I had never before considered the brute fact of my shared time with fellow members of my family. The significance and meaning of my attachment to my family members is mediated by a vast expanse of shared memories and time spent together. My feelings toward them based on that would not be in any way diminished if instead of having been a natural born member of the clan, I had instead been adopted. My emotions and feelings about the members of my family are built on that shared time together. In a sense, mature love is similar, in resting on a foundation of shared time and commitments to each other. In this vein, it's worth noting that immature love, the infatuation stage, is known to be wildly unreliable in terms of our heart's ability to assess such things as the stability of a partner, their sexual desirability, their suitability as a life-long helpmate, and so on. It is only with the transition to mature love that these perceptions seem to settle down into more realistic assessments. I don't know if you have experience of the mature phase of a sexual relationship, but because of the effects of the intense intimacy and interdependability, mature sexual relationships have shapes which aren't equally modeled in family or friend relationships. They have their own palpable dynamic which itself is a consequence of the continual interaction in terms of intimacy, interdependability, and so on. However, like the way in which our feelings about our family are shaped by the shared experiences and mutual observation of each other's maturation, the romantic couple's feelings towards each other are likewise shaped by the features unique to that relationship. In either case, the "value" which I attach toward a family member is as much shaped by that mundane history, which we have direct access to, as it is by our biology and evolved psychology as a social species. I don't need to appeal to a mysterious third party to acquire a deep and meaningful connection to another person, such as a lover, spouse, father, or sister. Biology and shared time are more than adequate as a rough draft explanation.

Anyway, we've lumped together sexual relationships, friendship, family relationships, personality traits such as patience and intelligence, as well as political and moral concepts such as human worth. Each of these appears unique and divergent in the ways which mundane, directly accessible facts can contribute to our varied inferences about who we and others are, and our value, exact or not. By this time, the analogy to vision is literally bursting at its seams. Nowhere in any of this does there appear to be a necessary call to an outside knower. You not only need the existence of objective value, but two additional components as well. a) That objective values would not exist without a perfect knower of the objective facts, and b) that my imperfect representation of those values would not exist if said knower did not exist. In some sense, you need to show how perfect knowledge of such values in some sense "causes" our imperfect representations. If you have addressed these points in the other thread you reference, I request that you import them here or provide specific reference to individual posts in that thread. I do not at present intend to delve into that thread in search of things which may not even be there.

I will take a moment here to compliment you on the improvement in your exposition of your argument in the OP here. Your presentation follows the form of a syllogism and is much easier to follow and analyze than your previous, seeming "stream of consciousness" expositions of the argument before. You have improved in your ability to convey your ideas considerably. Good work.