Evolution, value, and 'intelligence'

[Veritas]

Objective reality is that which the Subject is placed in.

If you mean that you do not denote a duality between the object and subject, I'm in. It makes a lot more sense then attempting to place subject in a vacuum that has no relation to reality, which I've heard some Enlightenment kooks attempt to do.

As I see it, everything we experience must come from somewhere, e.g. sensations, perceptions of objects, experience of thought - and this somewhere must be something outside of the Subject, whether it corresponds to "reality" as think of it or not e.g. when we hallucinate, we might say that these hallucinations are not reality, but they nonetheless are coming from somewhere, i.e. from our brain. The difference in this case is how the object we are perceiving relates to other objects and other subjects. So yes, I say that the subject is connected to something outside of the subject, and that we denote this by objects, which forms the basis of inter-subjective reality. You might be able to explain things in terms of subject alone, I'm not sure, but you would probably end up with something that may as well be denoted by subject and object.

So yes, I assume agree here.

Is there any alternative to being a "dog chasing after cars"? We constantly strive for perfection, not so that we may reach it, but because the striving itself is of value. IMHO.

You kind of defeat your own idea when you carry out this process to its ultimate conclusion though, which I feel is eternal recurrence. Life as a means towards life is not a prodigious generation of new means, it has a consistent means, and that is life. Otherwise I think you run into the Heraclitus vs. Parmenides paradox, which is a problem of epistemology, really, as is this entire debate at its heart.

Is there any alternative to this? or how would you conceive of things otherwise? We are at any moment presented with a particular representation of the world, and we then make a choice, whatever this implies, through our Will, and then this has some kind of effect, whatever that implies. The two important questions are: what is the best way to conceive of this Representation (descriptive)? and how should we then direct our Will given this Representation (normative)?

I believe the purpose here is to answer the second question by saying: do not bind the Will to any object of the Representation. I believe this to be Nietzsche's view, I believe it also to be the Buddhist notion of non-attachment, I even believe it to be the Christian notion of placing no gods before the True God.

[Galvanized]

How do we formulate a basis for action other than through representation? I'm playing devil's advocate now, and I'm also trying to see if you can help me refine my skills at asking questions.

[Veritas]

How do we formulate a basis for action other than through representation? I'm playing devil's advocate now, and I'm also trying to see if you can help me refine my skills at asking questions.

We cannot act outside of representation, because an action implies a relation to objects. However, the Acting agent must have some basis for choice of Action that goes beyond objects, and that basis is the Subject itself, or at least something that goes beyond object. We can't represent what this is precisely because to do so we are only using objects, but nonetheless it is there.

If you want, you can ignore the aspect of the subject, and simply suppose that at any time the value we place on objects is imperfect, and recognise that we can change this. The question is then how we choose what we change this to, what the basis for this is. I say this comes from the Subject itself, though to you this may not be correct, which is fine. The important thing to note is, in my opinion, that we are free to change the values we attach to objects, and I believe once we remove the unnecessary aspects of our values that we will move closer to what it is truly of value.

I need to refine my skills at answering questions of course, but I think that at a certain point the other person must already agree. We should therefore try and collectively build a consensus as to what it is we do agree with, with regards to how we conceive of the world, and how we believe we should act within it.

[Conservationist]

Isn't the claim that there is no objective measure of value an objective measurement of value?

No, it's an objective measurement however, which promptly casts doubt on the statement itself.

Language can be illogical: "This sentence is not true." -- if logically consistent, not correspondent to reality; if logically inconsistent, correspondent to reality.

Why would you choose to invest time and energy in art if all that mattersis not dying?

Part of not dying means feeling a connection to life beyond the immediate. Maslow's pyramid rears its ugly head; when you have food, shelter and defense, you don't just stop there and vegetate for the rest of your life.