False. Green is CAUSED by our eyes and brain. There is nothing intrinsic about the wavelengths that cause us to perceive them as green. It is a biological adaptation that proved to be beneficial to us to be able to differentiate between certain wavelengths on a very small portion of the light spectrum.
Objectively speaking, light is light, whether it is in what we call the infrared spectrum or if it is in what we call the visible spectrum. "Green" does not exist outside of our minds.
There is something intrinsic about the wavelengths that react with our eyes and brain that make it green ... and Objectively the difference between the wavelength that creates green in your eyes is objectively different that the wavelength that creates yellow in your eyes.
Of course. I learned that my perceptions were "flawed" at a young age due to my color-blindness. I also learned this is true for everyone, though. I never take the arrogant and inaccurate stance that my perception is objectively "true" until proven otherwise. I realize fully that my perceptions are only a subjective interpretation of reality. Ironically, that allows me to understand the actual objective truth about reality. The objective truth is not "This object is blue", it is "This object reflects light which I subjectively perceive to be blue". The light which is perceived is not even an intrinsic characteristic of the object. It is the light which the object "rejects". If I were to assume that my perceptions were objectively true, I would always remain ignorant of the objective truth about the object and the light it reflects.
I live my life knowing that the objective truth is that I perceive reality as I perceive it. I don't just wait for a defeater to exist, I realize a defeater almost always exists, it merely requires a search to discover it.
You learned that you're perceptions were flawed because you were convinced that you were color blind, but you had no reason to doubt your perceptions before that ... you had a defeater.
If you assumed every perception was false, you'd not be able to live life, you MUST take them at face values UNLESS you have a defeater.
I know that the objective truth is that my perceptions are my subjective interpretations of reality. I have no other option but to exist within my subjective interpretation of reality, but I am always searching for the truth behind the illusion, though. If the truth was that the whole of everything popped into existence five "seconds" ago, I would be able to discover that truth if it were possible for me to discover it because I constantly question my own perceptions.
To explain, most people think that the objective truth about light light is that it is something they can see. If they enter a room where they cannot perceive light, they make the silly assumption, based on "common sense" that the room has no light in it. That is only their subjective truth, though. The objective truth is that there is light in that room. They are unable to perceive it. So because they made the silly decision to trust their perceptions implicitly without question, they came to the wrong conclusion about the objective reality.
But, because they cannot perceive the infrared light, they must live within their subjective reality, flawed as that reality may be. Thus, they will turn on a light which casts light in a spectrum that they can perceive in order to interact with the objective reality.
How would you be able to discover that the whole universe was created 5 seconds ago with the appearance of age ... it would be literally impossible, yet you believe that it wasn't, it's a properly basic belief.
You can measure light ... and that measurment uses your perceptions .... infared light wasn't discovered rationally, it was discovered empirically, i.e. using perceptions.
Much like the infrared light example, simply because you are unable to perceive or understand that it is present does not mean it isn't present.
Except it is measurable ...
I'm not saying that it is just as arbitrary as "Ice cream is delicious", because that is simply your misuse of th eword arbitrary. I have always said that everything in existence is objectively meaningless, though. Why wouldn't it be? It's silly to think that objective reality has meaning.
I know you're not saying that, but it IS, and you're argument that it isn't fails, you cannot show that it's fundementally any different.
And if you really do subjectively believe that good equals maximal happiness, it is objectively true that you believe that. It is not, however, objectively true that good = maximal happiness. That is merely your subjective belief.
Ergo, since all moral codes are based on a subjective belief, all moral codes are inehrently subjective. Even those that pretend to be objective.
Yeah ... and thus that belief (that hapiness=good) is arbitrary and isn't based on anything.
There are tons of things about being stabbed that can be measured which can be used to define the parameters of one's subjective definition of "good" and "bad". It's effect on happiness, for example. Pain is another one. These subjective sensations are no different than green.
But adding to happiness being good is arbitrary, and there is nothing inherent in it that makes it good, you have to just make that leap, arbitrarily, just like saying "more sugar means more delicious."
Cosmic time is a hypothetical construct. It doesn't exist anywhere. It's rather like sea level. Useful in a practical sense for calculation purposes, but not something which is "real" and observable.
Whether or not it is real and observable is something philosophers and scientists would disagree with, hell whether or not time exists is something people disagree on.
But it being observable has no bearing on whether or not it's objective.
There is no objective reality of "colder" or "hotter". That is our subjective interpretation (via experience) of the objective reality that their is more/less thermal energy. We feel heat, much like we feel pain. It is a product of chemicals signals inside of our body transmitted electrically. That feeling is where we derive our concept of "cold" and "hot". If we did not have the particular mechanisms involved, we would not experience heat and cold. Our inability to experience the changes in thermal energy, however, would not alter the objective reality that changes in thermal energy occur. We would be capable of building equipment to measure these changes, much like we build equipment to measure light which is outside of the visible spectrum.
... Yes there is ... no matter what measuring you use, be it the metric system or farenheight, hotter and colder are objective, saying more/less thermal energy is just using different words for hotter/colder, thats nonsense, that's what hotter and colder MEANS. One can say that antartica is colder than the sahara whether or not anyone is there to feel it.
Either way in the end you agree with me, the therman energy IS OBJECTIVE, thus saying "I am hot" is based on something that is objective, and can be measured and determined exactly how "hot" something is, based on that measurement.
Because all of the evidence which does exists has shown us that our perceptions of reality are inaccurate depictions of reality.
Evidence collected from our perceptions of reality ....
No, I don't. I actually understand the objective fact that my subjective perception of reality is not an accurate reflection of the objective reality. I do NOT make the stupid assumption that my subjective reality is objectively accurate. I live my life in full knowledge of that, and I am in no way impeded by that.
You absolutely do, unless you never say "this is wrong," or "one should do this," if you hold your moral opinion with more weight than you hold your ice cream preferance you're not being logically consistant.
Not just me, everybody. But that doesn't change the fact that it is based on reason. It's not arbitrarily decided each time. Rules exist which people employ to pass their judgements. That the rules are arbitrary has no bearing on the final judgements not being arbitrary.
Well ... yeah they are ... if the rules you're basing them on are arbitrary, the aplication is ultimately just arbitrary, becasue the rules are.
For ****s sake. :roll:
Premise 1: I believe that that which is good (A) is that which increases overall happiness (B)
Premise 2: Chocolate cake (C) is something which increases overall happiness (B).
Conclusion: Therefore I believe that chocolate cake (C) is good (A)
The above would be both logically valid and logically sound if I were a Utilitarian. The truth of the conclusion is entailed by the truth of the premises. Learn logic, or stop pretending to know what you are talking about. It's just getting retarded now.
That sentance PERFECTLY shows the arbitrariness of morality and how it is fundementally NO different from personal prefernaces such as liking ice cream.
The moral code here is A ... C is just an application of A ... but you havn't used reason to establish A, you just arbitrarily assumed it, just like you would assume "I believe things with lots of sugar are delicious, thus ice cream is delicious."
You're proving my argument.
The belief is arbitrary, the moral code which develops from that belief, however, is not. It's the exact opposite of arbitrary.
THe belief IS the moral code ...
As I have said repeatedly, the "I believe killing is wrong" comment is usualy (but not always) based on some sort of reasoning, whereas the "I believe vanilla ice cream is good" comment is usually (but not always, as I showed a subjective moral argument for chocolate cake being good above) based on nothing more than the personal enjoyment of a physical sensation.
I have not been ignoring your question, you have been dutifully rejecting the answer every time I have given it.
How could "I believe killing is wrong" be based on any type of reasoning that cannot be used for "I believe vanilla ice cream is good," hell the ONLY difference in those statements are the object.