(December 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Rhizo-The "intelligent perceiver" may supply the "meaning", but that doesn't have anything to do with existence. Two rocks would still be two rocks (objectively speaking) if there were no one to contemplate the number two, or rocks (if the statement lacked any meaning). "Meaning" and "existence" have their own words and definitions for exactly this reason. "Meaning" is anthropic bias writ large. Meaning to whom, in relation to what?
Yes, so you agree with me.
Here is what I think:
1. Things exist objectively
2. Intelligence based judgments require a subjective point of view in relation to those things
3. Therefore there are no objective intelligence based judgements
I think the practice of placing objective in front of morality is an example of creating a noncognitive sentence.
Maybe I'm a crazy optimist but I think amkerman might be coming close to a rational position. If we can only get him to stop conflating judgments about things and the things themselves. That seems to be the sticking point.
