It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Intrinsic Value Exist?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Energy is a very good candidate, well done.


However, I will attempt to defend my assertion in the OP by saying that even energy has no intrinsic value. You see, even though everything is made up of energy, it still requires an object to draw out its potential. I guess what I am saying is there is always a [subject,object] relationship when it comes to value; the subject has no meaning without the object, and vice versa.


edit on 6/5/2013 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)


I don't know about the necessity of a subject-object relationship. The potential of energy is always there. It doesn't matter if it's used or not. Does a dollar lose it's value ***because*** no one spends it?




posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ottobot
There is no such thing as intrinsic value outside of the human mind.

True, but does anything really exist "outside the human mind" to begin with? If we have no evidence of something, or something is beyond our perception and comprehension, does it exist?

You can say, "imagine a universe with no people in it." But there is no such thing. In order to even imagine such a thing, you also have to imagine somebody with a pair of eyeballs looking at that hypothetical situation. A proxy consciousness or point of view. And you have to be alive to do that.

So the way I see it, since the universe itself can't be proven to exist without somebody experiencing it, objects in the universe will always have some kind of value.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


The question is, 'Does Intrinsic Value Exist?'. Value does not exist until it is assigned - whether it is assigned by humans or not is irrelevant. In this instance, in relation to this post, we are speaking of value as interpreted by humans.

Animals have a natural order or hierarchy, this is true. But true "value"? That is not taught to them by humans? I am interested in any animals that have a natural bartering system or who display respect for inanimate objects - I would like to read about them if you'd provide some information please.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 


There are several species that have been studied doing just that.

Link



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
True, but does anything really exist "outside the human mind" to begin with? If we have no evidence of something, or something is beyond our perception and comprehension, does it exist?

Yes. Just because we cannot perceive something does not mean it does not exist. A black hole, for instance, was at one time imperceptible to humans. Yet, once humans realized that black holes existed, they became a part of our reality. If we look at a black hole that was formed millions of years ago, we realize that it existed long before us, and long before our perception was capable of understanding it. We see it NOW, in our reality, but it existed without us just the same.



You can say, "imagine a universe with no people in it." But there is no such thing. In order to even imagine such a thing, you also have to imagine somebody with a pair of eyeballs looking at that hypothetical situation. A proxy consciousness or point of view. And you have to be alive to do that.

I definitely think there are universes without humans. This universe has humans in it, but I can definitely imagine a universe without humans. Humans aren't the end-all of existence. This universe was, at one point, human-less. When the human species dies out, this universe will again be humanless. Humans are nothing to the universe.



So the way I see it, since the universe itself can't be proven to exist without somebody experiencing it, objects in the universe will always have some kind of value.
Yes, that's just limited to the human existence though. There are many things about the universe that humans do not know about and cannot comprehend. Thus, they have "no value", but only because no human has ever thought about them. Intrinsic value cannot exist because value does not exist intrinsically.

This is what I mean - there is no value unless a human assigns value.

Intrinsically, meaning as it exists, everything is of equal value because there is no such thing as value without the human mind.

edit on 5/6/13 by ottobot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


Thanks for the link. Yes, I'd read about various instances of animal prostitution, but only observed in a clinical setting.

But, this is still the same thing - there is no value to sex or pebbles until the value is assigned. Something is valuable only if it is "wanted" or "needed". Thus, value is dependent on assignment. If there is no assignment, there is no value.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 




My answer would be NO. Nothing in life maintains intrinsic value; every type of worth we associate with any object, person, entity or concept relies on its relation to the living beings that surround, or the context in which they exist.


You would be wrong, there are basic things that have intrinsic value in the very strict definition you are applying, human life is one the other is emotions, all emotions have a value that does not depend on context, other things like knowledge and information also have it as does health, security, hope (for something better or an improvement)...



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ottobot
 


I wasn't arguing intrinsic value, you stated that value was a human institution and all I was stating is that animals have a similar value system as we do.

Another example would be a pet canine that prefers one toy over another, showing preference of an item is assigning value.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


I see the point you are making. You seem to be arguing that anything created within the universe is as natural as it can be and carries intrinsic value by virtue of its creation.

But let me ask you this: would you consider it "natural" to create a nuclear weapon so big that it wipes out all life on planet Earth?



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
I don't know about the necessity of a subject-object relationship. The potential of energy is always there. It doesn't matter if it's used or not. Does a dollar lose it's value ***because*** no one spends it?


What if you drop that one dollar bill/coin into a remote village in a region where they don't use notes/coins as a form of currency? What value does that coin maintain in such a context? It would just be a piece of paper or metal with no intrinsic value.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ottobot
Yes. Just because we cannot perceive something does not mean it does not exist. A black hole, for instance, was at one time imperceptible to humans. Yet, once humans realized that black holes existed, they became a part of our reality. If we look at a black hole that was formed millions of years ago, we realize that it existed long before us, and long before our perception was capable of understanding it. We see it NOW, in our reality, but it existed without us just the same.

I'm still not convinced. Because in order for us to infer that something existed before we did, we still have to perceive the evidence of it. If we never perceived that evidence, would it still exist, or have ever existed? I don't see how. With the evidence, we now have the concept of the black hole existing in the past, but a concept is not the same as existence, is it? I have a concept of a leprechaun.

Try to imagine a thing out there. It's hard, because I don't have a name for it, and I can't tell you what it is or what its properties are. Does it exist? That's what you're telling me a black hole was at one point, right? The only difference is that we eventually perceived evidence for a black hole. What if we never get evidence of this other thing? Does it exist now, and did it exist in the past from where we are right now?

I tend to think that this unnamed, unknown thing doesn't exist. Because if everything we have yet to perceive exists, then space and time would be constantly jammed with stuff. The thing that keeps everything from existing everywhere all the time is our perception of it.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Human devotion is the only currency that can't lose its primacy. What it assigns value to is what is valuable. The more human devotion something achieves, the more valuable it becomes. One of the most successful types of currency to exist was an arrangement of notched sticks that the English used - it actually originated the concept of money, as representing wealth that exists or is supposed to exist. Without the acceptance of those sticks as money, they were just sticks. Human devotion to that currency as valuable made them valuable.

Human devotion is the only intrinsic value. It lends that value to what it decides to lend it to. Nothing else has that power over the whole of reality.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


I think we have much different perceptions of the universe. You are looking at it from the perspective of "humans have understanding of the universe" and I am looking at it from the perspective of "humans understand nothing of the universe".

I do see your point, nothing exists for humans until they can see it and examine it for themselves. This is true, and it is due to our limited brainpower. But, existence itself is infinite and not limited to human perception. Humans cannot know the limits of existence. Did the earth exist when dinosaurs roamed it, or do we only say it existed because there are fossils of dinosaurs? There is no reason to create paradox where none is found.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


As I stated at the end of my initial post, "There is no such thing as intrinsic value outside of the human mind."

This was my point. "Value" in my original comment is in reference to "Intrinsic Value". I apologize for the misunderstanding. I realize that some animals have a basic concept of "value" based on instinct. However, they have no concept if "intrinsic".

The concept of intrinsic value, the ability to comprehend and ponder the existence of value and if value is intrinsic does not exist outside of the human mind. (As far as we know.)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join