On Objectivity

[BlackSheep]

No particular wavelength is blue. You cannot point to any one wavelength that's objectively blue. You'd like to point me to a standard range of frequencies specified by some committee. But that just proves my point. Blueness is a convention -- a convention based on "normal" sensation yet nevertheless a convention. We have all sorts of these conventions in language. What is a tall man? Who has blonde hair?

The wavelengths all objectively exist. We can ignore the terms for how we perceive them. Whether they are perceived or not they objectively exist.

[Cephus]

I should be clearer about how important Craig's claims are to my argument-- they aren’t. I only addressed one thing he said that is clearly untrue.

Despite the confusion about objectivity, it need not be universal to be objective. Refer to the link below and take notice that universal constants are NOT a condition of a thing existing objectively. If certain moral behaviors were intrinsic in humans then that is the objective foundation of morality.

The fact we have evolved to feel good or bad about behaviors and experiences should be enough to show that we needed a way [before linguistic thought] to distinguish between intrinsic right and wrong behaviors. The reason we feed our children instead of throwing them into a blender is because we have been genetically coded to want our species to thrive. Throwing your child into a blender would be an objectively inappropriate behavior. If you disagree and think this is subjective to opinion... then I'm not sure what else I can say because you're apparently just as hopeless as the religious.

Objective - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Yet that's not how things work. In nature, many species openly kill the young of other males to give their own offspring a better chance to survive and thrive. It's not genetically inappropriate, in fact before humans evolved intelligence, I'm sure that was the norm for us as well. We developed cultures and cultures came up with the rules against killing offspring. Genetics has very little to do with it.

[Cephus]

It certainly does. Blue was not around before animals evolved that could distinguish it from green and red. Similarly, love was not around before animals evolved that could feel it.

So you're saying those specific wavelengths didn't exist before life existed on this planet? Seriously? For love, I might agree, since love is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain and if there are no brains with that reaction, the feeling wouldn't exist, but for light, that's something entirely external to the experiencer.

[Cephus]

No particular wavelength is blue. You cannot point to any one wavelength that's objectively blue. You'd like to point me to a standard range of frequencies specified by some committee. But that just proves my point. Blueness is a convention -- a convention based on "normal" sensation yet nevertheless a convention. We have all sorts of these conventions in language. What is a tall man? Who has blonde hair?

Absolutely you can because we defined it that way and slapped the label "blue" on it! Blue is our word for what we've defined as that color.

[DonJindra]

Absolutely you can because we defined it that way and slapped the label "blue" on it! Blue is our word for what we've defined as that color.

From Wikipedia: "Blue is a colour, the perception of which is evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 450–490 nm."

That's "roughly" how blue is defined. It's a range of frequencies. It's not one precise frequency. It cannot be one precise frequency because eyes are not all exactly the same. Therefore there cannot be one precise -- objective -- blue that applies to everyone.

[DonJindra]

So you're saying those specific wavelengths didn't exist before life existed on this planet? Seriously?

I think I made it clear that that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that prior to life there was nothing to sense "blue" therefore "blue" didn't exist. The light frequencies certainly did exist prior to life.

This distinction isn't new. It goes back to Galileo and probably earlier.

[Cephus]

From Wikipedia: "Blue is a colour, the perception of which is evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 450–490 nm."

That's "roughly" how blue is defined. It's a range of frequencies. It's not one precise frequency. It cannot be one precise frequency because eyes are not all exactly the same. Therefore there cannot be one precise -- objective -- blue that applies to everyone.

"Blue" is a general descriptor, we do have tons of different shades of blue.

Try again.

[Cephus]

I think I made it clear that that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that prior to life there was nothing to sense "blue" therefore "blue" didn't exist. The light frequencies certainly did exist prior to life.

This distinction isn't new. It goes back to Galileo and probably earlier.

The label "blue" didn't exist because there was no one to put that label on the phenomenon. However, what we now consider blue absolutely did exist. Stop getting hung up on labels.

[DonJindra]

The label "blue" didn't exist because there was no one to put that label on the phenomenon. However, what we now consider blue absolutely did exist. Stop getting hung up on labels.

You're the one getting hung up on labels. And you're being confused by the fact that light waves are necessary for color perception. "Blue" is merely a label for how we humans perceive some light waves. That's the essence of subjectivity. I could switch to the label "soft". What is a "soft" material? Is "soft" an objective property? No, it is not. A "soft" rain is not an objective way of describing rain. "Blue" is not an objective way of describing light waves.

[DonJindra]

"Blue" is a general descriptor, we do have tons of different shades of blue.

Exactly -- a general descriptor. It's not specific. And what does it describe -- our sensation. Shades of blue -- like shades of truth. You're making my case.

[R.F.]

Actually if certain moral behaviors are intrinsic to humans then they are the objective foundation of human morality, but he is not talking about human morality. he is talking about universal morality that he claims is part of the universe due to Yahweh's creation of it.

Well The same moral rules would apply to all animals if it were as he claims, otherwise he is referring to human morality exclusively, but point taken.

You continue to miss my point. While I think much of morality is culturally based, certainly some are likely based in our genes. This would be the objective basis of those elements of human morality.

I guess being human I am mainly concerned with the basis of our morality, but I get what you're saying now. I still have no idea why it has to be an intrinsic value of the universe...I think it's a bit vacuous

[BlackSheep]

Yet that's not how things work. In nature, many species openly kill the young of other males to give their own offspring a better chance to survive and thrive. It's not genetically inappropriate, in fact before humans evolved intelligence, I'm sure that was the norm for us as well. We developed cultures and cultures came up with the rules against killing offspring. Genetics has very little to do with it.

Actually you can argue this is a form of morality. Male lions for example taking over a pride will kill and cubs that are not weaned to quicken the females coming into heat. They do not kill other cubs. A very specific behavior. Taking care of young is a very stressful endeavor and it takes a long time. There are instincts at play for all animals who raises their offspring without a doubt.

I am not aware of any primates with this behavior, so I doubt it has ever bee a human behavior at least not until we got smart enough.