Is Objectivity Realistic or a Human Illusion?

[Kerrie]

As the human race, we have identified what would be considered "objective"...

"Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually"

here is the definition i am referring to...yet, what i am wondering is, can objectivity be unrealistic because human beings are ultimately and absolutely subjective creatures when we observe, hear, think, feel, react and sense?

And most of all, why do we believe there is an objective reality out there?

Oh boy, if only Lifegazer were here...

 

[wuliheron]

Objectivity and the belief there is an external objective world are reflections of humanity's normal state of consciousness. Buddhists and other meditators, for example, claim there are no less than five distinct states of awareness, and that such distinctions as internal and objective disappear the more progressively quiet the mind becomes. This suggests that objectivity and the perception of an objective world are largely fabrications conjured up by the human mind only distantly related to the reality. This makes a great deal of sense considering humanity is capable of extremely complex manipulations of abstractions, is its own worst enemy, and that a simplified dualistic perspective of life can therefore promote survival of the species.

 

[quartodeciman]

Is anyone familiar with Notre Dame University Professor Alvin Plantinga's claim that if one assumes standard Evolution (with random genetic variation and selection) and Naturalism (no supernatural causes) are correct, then the conditional probability of human development of realistic explanations (really correct explanations) is low? In symbols:

P[R|E&N] ~ 0

. His corollary to this would be that a God is necessary to inspire understanding of the natural world. I think he argues that a human mind directed only by physical survival requirements (the four Fs) and no supernatural influences would not develop realistic explanations of things except by rare accident. I haven't read his books on this subject.

Anybody else?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I think that you are mixing two definitions of subjective/objective. One definition deals with sensory perception, and the other deals with impartiality.

Hearing and feeling (as in touch) do not necessarily impede on being objective in a decision. In fact, hearing is a very good asset in that, because you gain lots of information through hearing.

Being objective, i.e.-being impartial, is all about hearing the evidence and deciding as best you can with your logical abilities, without prejudices and other emotions interfering with that process--not necessarily that you don't have emotions, which is impossible for humans, but that you don't let them interfere with your logical judgment.

Now, we are imperfect humans, so this can often be hard, and we often fall short of that goal. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize any subjectivity.

As far as objective reality, anything else is absurd. Because otherwise, reality could not be subjective, because that subjectivity would be subjective, and hence could be objective. Do you see the paradox?

 

[Iacchus32]

Objectivity and subjectivity are two sides of the same coin. One is rationally based and the other is emotionally based. And yet you can't have one without the other. Reality is the equilibrium that exists between the two extremes. While I think it would be fair to say we'd be better off promoting their integration rather than their separation.

 

[jammieg]

Kerrie, have you ever had an itch that you couldn't scratch, what if the solution to the itch stemmed from the same source as the problem? It is very common when one first meditates to experience an itching sensation, it takes some practice to learn to ignore this then it goes away. This is what a Buddhist might call the beginner's stage of learning to control one's instincts or emotions I think the two are entwined. The closer one gets to the truth the stronger the mind is clouded by emotions and personal conflicts. Emotions have a desire to stimulate themselves sometimes, so problems and uncontrollables that always come up are often exaggerated by emotions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Kerrie
here is the definition i am referring to...yet, what i am wondering is, can objectivity be unrealistic because human beings are ultimately and absolutely subjective creatures when we observe, hear, think, feel, react and sense?

And most of all, why do we believe there is an objective reality out there?

These two questions deal with two different definitions of "objective" (as has been pointed out in previous posts). However, my answers are:

1) Do you mean to ask whether it is possible to be uninfluenced by your own feelings when making judgement?

2) It's good, I think, that you should ask this "why" question, because it is impossible to prove that there is an objective reality, but if one asks "why do we believe in it", then on is faced with the undeniable fact that it is human nature to believe in an objective reality. Now, if there is no objective reality, then why would it be in our nature to believe in it?

Oh boy, if only Lifegazer were here...

Yeah, his whole "Mind" case was based on the unprovability of the objective Universe concept.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Kerrie
yet, what i am wondering is, can objectivity be unrealistic because human beings are ultimately and absolutely subjective creatures when we observe, hear, think, feel, react and sense?

Yes, that is one reason.

The second reason is physics (QM).

Originally posted by Kerrie
And most of all, why do we believe there is an objective
reality out there?

Please, do not speak for all of us.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Kerrie]

it is the scientific way to claim there is an objective reality because of what we observe outside ourselves, but ultimately that reality is being filtered through 5 (maybe 6 for some ) subjective senses that are affected by personal experiences...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Kerrie
it is the scientific way to claim there is an objective reality because of what we observe outside ourselves, but ultimately that reality is being filtered through 5 (maybe 6 for some ) subjective senses that are affected by personal experiences...

So what you're saying is that realiy can only be interpreted "from within." Which to me belies the fact that there's a "spiritual reality" as well.

 

[Kerrie]

So what you're saying is that realiy can only be interpreted "from within." Which to me belies the fact that there's a "spiritual reality" as well.

logically that would be correct if you believe spirituality is not within you...i see spirituality within me...

 

[Royce]

To answer your first question, Kerrie, IMHO No, it is not possible for any human being to be completely objective. We cannot completely isolate our emotions from anything we attempt to do. Our best attempt is to be logical but I cannot state absolutely that there is no emotional content in our logic. Example: correct logic 'feels' or 'seems' right; incorrect logic feels or seems wrong.

To answer your second question, IMHO, The reason we believe that there is an objective reality out there is because when we were very young children we did not question reality but accepted it in the literal way of children and lived in it without question all of our lives until we got old enough, educated enough and wise(?) enough to ask "Is reality really out there?" By then it's to late. we've been literally living in reality for too long to be able to completely dismiss it for philisophical reasons. This may seem simplistic but it sounds plausable and feels right to me.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Kerrie
logically that would be correct if you believe spirituality is not within you...i see spirituality within me...

No, what I'm saying is that if reality can only be perceived from within, then the understanding of that reality, and hence the understanding of ourselves, ultimately entails the "journey within," and so alludes to a greater "Spiritual Reality."

Whereas the form (truth) is external and the essence (life itself or good) is internal. Which is to say, the internal reality is far greater than the external reality -- or perhaps not while we're of "this world?" -- because it entails the "life within."

Do you think this is what it possibly means when the scriptures say, "The love of the world (external reality) puts you at emnity with God" (internal reality)?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Kerrie
it is the scientific way to claim there is an objective reality because of what we observe outside ourselves, but ultimately that reality is being filtered through 5 (maybe 6 for some ) subjective senses that are affected by personal experiences...

No, science discribes observation using theories according
to accepted reasoning. Science doesn't claim there is
an objective reality it just seems like a likely
conclusion from this reasoning, but that is already part
of Philosophy rather than science.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

No, science discribes observation using theories according
to accepted reasoning. Science doesn't claim there is
an objective reality it just seems like a likely
conclusion from this reasoning, but that is already part
of Philosophy rather than science.

Live long and prosper.

so what's the point of an objective reality if we will never be able to know it?

 

[Another God]

the point of objectivity?
The point of objectivity is that without objectivity, there would be nothing to be subjectively experienced.

Just because we can't know 'it' doesn't mean it isn't important to what we do 'know'...

 

[Another God]

And to go back to the original post, I really dislike that definition. I have two definitons of objective, one is THE Objective, while the second is the type of objective that scientists try to be (which is more like the definition)

THE Objective, is..well...THE Objective world. The truth. The state of everything. It is evereything that is. If something is, then it is objectively.

What we then do, as subjective humans, is to 'experience' a subjective inference of that objectivity. We never experience THE Objective, because we are subjective. Everything we 'see', is seen subjectively. Everything we hear, is 'heard' subjectively. Etc. In objectivity, red does not exist, C Minor does not exist, pain does not exist, cold and hot do not exist. Subjective concepts, do not exist in objectivity, and our subjective experiences are only a translated reference to THE Objective.

Anyway, from that subjective translation of THE Objective, we attempt to talk 'objectively' about that experience. We talk 'objectively' by appealing to inter-subjectivity. ie: We try to find the common basis of all of our personal subjective experiences.

I Don't know that what I see when i see red looks anything like what you see when you see red (I only know that you have been taught to call that experience 'red'). So what we do, is we find the common source of that 'red' phenomenon and claim that this source is the objective unit of 'red'... Of course though, even in out detection of this unit, we are detecting it through a series of other subjective inferences...

 

[jammieg]

Sight is probably the most objective sense we have, hence the phrase "seeing is believing"(taking off during the Enlightenment and affecting the scientific method),and in this way most everything should be able to be objectified, eventually, although the more important and increasingly abstract concepts may take science a lot longer to get to.

 

[Iacchus32]

Well, once we extract all the substance out of the center, we will indeed have a shell without a ghost. And all but a monument to a civilization which was lost.

And I now pronounce you an effect without a cause ... "dead formalism."

 

[Zero]

Perfect objectivity may not be possible...but abandoning it for subjectivity is a mistake. And, as far as objective reality...what else is worth talking about, but a reality that is real for everyone?

 

[Iacchus32]

Love and Truth

Originally posted by Zero
Perfect objectivity may not be possible...but abandoning it for subjectivity is a mistake. And, as far as objective reality...what else is worth talking about, but a reality that is real for everyone?

A reality which is real but "temporal" right? ...

We see by the light of the sun (objective reality) and are sustained by its warmth (subjective reality). We obviously can't live without either one. And yet we would die first from the lack of heat (Love) than we would the lack of light (Truth).

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Kerrie
so what's the point of an objective reality if we
will never be able to know it?

The point is simple - wa can't do without one, at least
a likely one and for now.

Objectivity is basicly dealing with some defined
singular entities or axioms. Since they are singular and
defined they are objective - they have absolute or
unquestionable properties.

All of our attempts at thinking - reasoning so far appear
to have included such entities/axioms. Thus the result is
that we can not apparently make sense of anything, for now,
without something unquestionable - objective as a basis.

Likely or absolute, objectivity still apparenlty stays the
same for now.

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Oh and, I was trying to get to the basics so I did
not mention the farther down the road social aspects
of the subject. However, the connection is seemingly
apparent since I've talked about our reasoning and
you can add communication to that, as a social aspect.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
We see by the light of the sun (objective reality) and are sustained by its warmth (subjective reality).

The warmth of the sun is no more or less objective than the light of the sun.

We obviously can't live without either one. And yet we would die first from the lack of heat (Love) than we would the lack of light (Truth).

First, the heat is due to the light, so the priority you give to heat over light is misplaced. And second, associating heat with love and light with truth has no basis except in symbolism. This is the Philosophy forum, not the Creative Writing forum.

 

[drag]

Tom... You have no respect for the philosophical
meaning of the EM spectrum ?!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
The warmth of the sun is no more or less objective than the light of the sun.

Except that we "see" the truth (light) and "feel" the good (warmth), which are direct correlatives.

First, the heat is due to the light, so the priority you give to heat over light is misplaced. And second, associating heat with love and light with truth has no basis except in symbolism.

Truth is the vessel (form) and good is contained within (essence).

This is the Philosophy forum, not the Creative Writing forum.

Actually there's nothing wrong with my correlations. I'm sorry you feel this way.

And besides, what is it about the typeset on this screen -- or, "language in general" -- that's not symbolic? How else would we communicate then?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that we "see" the truth (light) and "feel" the good (warmth), which are direct correlatives.

No, they are not.

First, one does not "see the truth" or "feel the good" in anything, unless one changes the definitions of "see" and "feel", in which case the correlations fall apart due to a fallacy of equivocation.

Truth is the vessel (form) and good is contained within (essence).

Sounds like a fortune cookie.

Actually there's nothing wrong with my correlations. I'm sorry you "feel" this way.

Of course there is something wrong with it. It is totally arbitrary. "Light" simply does not mean the same thing as "truth", except in a metaphorical sense. The light from the sun consists of electromagnetic waves, and truth does not. And "warm" (a quality relating to temperature) certainly does not mean "good" (a value judgement), except in a metaphorical sense.

And besides, what is it about the typeset on this screen -- or, "language in general" -- that's not symbolic? How else would we communicate then?

Of course language is symbolic, but it is a symbolism that we all agree on. That is why it is meaningful. If you want "light" to mean "truth" and "warm" to mean "good", then you have to shine a light at someone to communicate "truth" and put a source of heat into contact with someone to communicate "good" in order for that symbolism to carry the same meaning as written language (assuming of course that you can get someone to agree to share your crazy language with you).

edit: typo

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
No, they are not.

First, one does not "see the truth" or "feel the good" in anything, unless one changes the definitions of "see" and "feel", in which case the correlations fall apart due to a fallacy of equivocation.

I can see we're getting nowhere real fast!

Sounds like a fortune cookie.

A good fortune I hope!

Of course there is something wrong with it. It is totally arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary to me. It's an association, just like any other which imparts "meaning."

"Light" simply does not mean the same thing as "truth", except in a metaphorical sense.

And what's wrong with a metaphor, if not to show a correlation? And there is a correlation here, whether you can acknowledge it or not.

The light from the sun consists of electromagnetic waves, and truth does not.

But how else could this have been conveyed 200-300 years ago, when people didn't "know" anything about electro-magnetic radiation? Does that mean it didn't exist then?

And "warm" (a quality relating to temperature) certainly does not mean "good" (a value judgement), except in a metaphorical sense.

Warmth is also associated with how we feel, i.e. "warm feelings," and hence "love" (or good).

Of course language is symbolic, but it is a symbolism that we all agree on. That is why it is meaningful. If you want "light" to mean "truth" and "warm" to mean "good", then you have to shine a light at someone to communicate "truth" and put a source of heat into contact with someone to communicate "good" in order for that symbolism to carry the same meaning as written language

And yet there is a direct correlation here. You know what they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words." And yet how would see that picture if you didn't shine a light on it first? And what's wrong with the idea of getting a "good warm hug" from somebody? Isn't that a means by which people convey love?

assuming of course that you can get someone to agree to share your crazy language with you.

If what I've got is crazy then so be it! At least you can't accuse me of not having a passion (or love) for what I'm doing.

And yes indeed, that is what sustains us, "Love."

 

[Iacchus32]

Aren't you aware of the fact that the sun is the very center of our existence (life on this planet), and that without out it, there would be no truth nor good to acknowledge, because we wouldn't be here to witness it?

You see this is the relationship we need to understand (between good and truth) if we wish to understand what it means to be "fully human."

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I can see we're getting nowhere real fast!

I'll say. You're taking a thread that is supposed to be about objectivity and turning it into a circus of metaphors.

It's not arbitrary to me. It's an association, just like any other which imparts "meaning."

Whatever. All I'm saying is that in order for it to have the same "meaning" as written language, you have to get other people to agree with it, because agreement is where language derives its meaning from.

And what's wrong with a metaphor, if not to show a correlation? And there is a correlation here, whether you can acknowledge it or not.

There is only a correlation in the linguistic sense if other people agree on it and agree to use it in that sense. Otherwise, it's arbitrary.

But how else could this have been conveyed 200-300 years ago, when people didn't "know" anything about electro-magnetic radiation? Does that mean it didn't exist then?

They might not have had as sophisticated understanding as we do today, but certainly people at that time knew the difference between the physical and the abstract. "Light" and "heat" are physical phenomena that are sensed. "Truth" and "good" are abstract ideas.

The rest of this post is just more word games. On to the next one...

Aren't you aware of the fact that the sun is the very center of our existence (life on this planet), and that without out it, there would be no truth nor good to acknowledge, because we wouldn't be here to witness it?

Oh, I get it. If the sun weren't here, we wouldn't be here. If we weren't here, then there would be no such human things as "truth" or "goodness". And, the sun produces light and heat. Therefore, light is (objective) truth and heat is (subjective) goodness.

Put down the bong, son!

You see this is the relationship we need to understand (between good and truth) if we wish to understand what it means to be "fully human."

*yawn*

Do you have anything to say about objectivity? I responded to you initially to clear up your misconception about it and to get this thread back on track, but you are carrying it into all manner of nonsense and vagueness.

 

[quantumdude]

Back to the topic...

Originally posted by Kerrie
As the human race, we have identified what would be considered "objective"...

"Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually"
here is the definition i am referring to...

I would say even more than that. "Objective" also means "independent of my mind". In other words, when I pass away and cease to be conscious, I believe that "that which is objective" will persist without my knowledge of it.

yet, what i am wondering is, can objectivity be unrealistic because human beings are ultimately and absolutely subjective creatures when we observe, hear, think, feel, react and sense?

Can objectivity be unrealistic? I would turn that around: I think that a lack of belief in objective reality is unrealistic. It is true that I can only prove to myself that I am conscious. Perhaps that all of reality only exists as my mental states? Bah. I reject that because, as I review the contents of my mind (the only thing to which I really have access), I see no overall blueprint of the universe. I was not born endowed with a knowledge or understanding of the laws of nature. And yet, in order to deny objective reality, I have to say that the blueprint is there, because without objective reality, all of reality is created by my mind.

And most of all, why do we believe there is an objective reality out there?

I gave one reason above: My seeming total lack of a priori knowledge of the universe. Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge. Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.

A second reason, which is related to the first, is the problem of other minds. The notion that my mental states are the only mental states (the height of subjectivity) is untenable when faced with the evidence that other bodies that look similar to mine exhibit behaviors similar to mine under the same stimuli/stressors. For instance, when someone close to me dies (stimulus), I cry (behavior) because I am sad (mental state). When a person close to someone else dies (stimulus), that person cries (behavior). Given the frequency and plurality of these stimuli-behavior correlations, and the similarity to my own similar behavior under the same stimuli, I cannot help but conclude that the bodies I observe have mental states associated with them[/color], despite the fact that I do not have access to any mental states other than my own.

Oh boy, if only Lifegazer were here...

Oh, yeah, he'd be a great help.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Aren't you aware of the fact that the sun is the very center of our existence (life on this planet), and that without out it, there would be no truth nor good to acknowledge, because we wouldn't be here to witness it?

first of all (a small techincal note) yes, without the sun humans wouldn't survive, but there are organisms not dependant on it.


now, the truth is that there is now goodness. or at least there is no universal goodness. no "goodness" property. humans percieve sunlight to be good becuase it is essential to our survival. it's a matter of evolution. evolution wouldn't have permited humans who hated sunlight to live; we need it. the universe doesn't give a care if we live or not, it will go through its cycles completely impersonally.

You see this is the relationship we need to understand (between good and truth) if we wish to understand what it means to be "fully human."

the relationship between good and truth is subjective and of no conciquence to the universe beyond earth. (humanity in particular)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I'll say. You're taking a thread that is supposed to be about objectivity and turning it into a circus of metaphors.

No, I'm just trying to show the relationship between the "objective truth" and the "subjective good."

Whatever. All I'm saying is that in order for it to have the same "meaning" as written language, you have to get other people to agree with it, because agreement is where language derives its meaning from.

Acutally what I've spoken here was borrowed from someone else, in which case there are at least two people who can agree upon it. Whereas the "book itself" holds a fairly wide publication, in which case there must be a lot more than that who will agree.

There is only a correlation in the linguistic sense if other people agree on it and agree to use it in that sense. Otherwise, it's arbitrary.

Like I said ...

They might not have had as sophisticated understanding as we do today, but certainly people at that time knew the difference between the physical and the abstract. "Light" and "heat" are physical phenomena that are sensed. "Truth" and "good" are abstract ideas.

Then what does e=MC2 mean? This is abstract, and yet doesn't it belie something physical?

The rest of this post is just more word games. On to the next one...

Yes, you putting words into my mouth ...

Oh, I get it. If the sun weren't here, we wouldn't be here. If we weren't here, then there would be no such human things as "truth" or "goodness". And, the sun produces light and heat. Therefore, light is (objective) truth and heat is (subjective) goodness.

Put down the bong, son!

You got it! (except for the part about the bong i guess?). We see by the light of the sun (a correlative of truth), and are sustained by its warmth (a correlative of good). Or, another way of putting it is, we see by the light of His Truth, and are sustained by the warmth of His Love.

*yawn*

Do you have anything to say about objectivity?

Yes, that a relationship exists between what is objective and what is subjective, and the one can't exist without the other, not without being complete anyway.

I responded to you initially to clear up your misconception about it and to get this thread back on track, but you are carrying it into all manner of nonsense and vagueness.

Hey don't start yanking my chain if you don't want me to respond (as such). What I'm saying here is just as fundamental as the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, in fact it goes a long way to show what that difference is. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.

Well, I'd love to sit and chat, but I have to go (for now).

P.S. The last post I made was two days ago, and there have been others post made since, meaning my post was not directly responsible for the lack of interest in this thread. As a matter of fact I can see that I've got some fan mail from maximus here too. Hmm ...

 

[Kerrie]

Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge. Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.

thank you tom for your input, i have a good deal of respect for what you have to say regarding this...

as for this, i think this makes a lot of logical objective sense

personally i feel that although as human beings we will never be purely objective, striving towards objectivity without denying our subjectivity is a true balance of understanding our reality...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I would say even more than that. "Objective" also means "independent of my mind". In other words, when I pass away and cease to be conscious, I believe that "that which is objective" will persist without my knowledge of it.

I can agree with that.

Can objectivity be unrealistic? I would turn that around: I think that a lack of belief in objective reality is unrealistic. It is true that I can only prove to myself that I am conscious. Perhaps that all of reality only exists as my mental states? Bah. I reject that because, as I review the contents of my mind (the only thing to which I really have access), I see no overall blueprint of the universe. I was not born endowed with a knowledge or understanding of the laws of nature. And yet, in order to deny objective reality, I have to say that the blueprint is there, because without objective reality, all of reality is created by my mind.

I think it would be fair to say that reality is "fixed," and yet each one of us is going to perceive it differently, and react to it differently, and ultimately add something to it -- or subtract -- in which case you can say reality is also affected (or produced) by our minds.

I gave one reason above: My seeming total lack of a priori knowledge of the universe. Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge. Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.

And yet what if you were but a newly born brain cell, born of an even "greater mind" -- i.e., the microcosm of the macrocosm? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? (as an analogy anyway).

A second reason, which is related to the first, is the problem of other minds. The notion that my mental states are the only mental states (the height of subjectivity) is untenable when faced with the evidence that other bodies that look similar to mine exhibit behaviors similar to mine under the same stimuli/stressors. For instance, when someone close to me dies (stimulus), I cry (behavior) because I am sad (mental state). When a person close to someone else dies (stimulus), that person cries (behavior). Given the frequency and plurality of these stimuli-behavior correlations, and the similarity to my own similar behavior under the same stimuli, I cannot help but conclude that the bodies I observe have mental states associated with them[/color], despite the fact that I do not have access to any mental states other than my own.

Isn't the mind itself "a collective" of smaller entities, called brain cells? And wouldn't it be possible for a brain cell to function on its own (under the proper conditions) if separated from the rest of the brain?

Oh, yeah, he'd be a great help.

Who knows? ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Kerrie
personally i feel that although as human beings we will never be purely objective, striving towards objectivity without denying our subjectivity is a true balance of understanding our reality...

Thank you! This is really all I was trying to convey. That although it's important to strive for objectivity, we mustn't forsake the fact that we're "subjective beings" -- with a "personal life" -- for that would be akin to denying our own existence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
first of all (a small techincal note) yes, without the sun humans wouldn't survive, but there are organisms not dependant on it.

And yet what are the two primary qualities about the sun which makes life possible on earth? Light and heat right? Or, to be more technical, the light and heat which are "radiated" from the sun. Whereas the qualities of the sun in our solar system aren't altogether different than the qualities of suns in other solar systems, so there must be something similar here or, perhaps even "universal."

now, the truth is that there is now goodness. or at least there is no universal goodness. no "goodness" property. humans percieve sunlight to be good becuase it is essential to our survival. it's a matter of evolution. evolution wouldn't have permited humans who hated sunlight to live; we need it. the universe doesn't give a care if we live or not, it will go through its cycles completely impersonally.

I think that was a typo. Are saying the truth is that there is "no" goodness? But people care don't they? Or, at least so it would seem ... And yet maybe the Universe does give a damn, by allowing us to give damn? By which we are then capable of acknowledging such a relationship exists.

the relationship between good and truth is subjective and of no conciquence to the universe beyond earth. (humanity in particular)

And yet what is the relationship between good and truth, if not the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity? And, while the idea may not click at first, what if I were to say good can only remain good so long as it remains "in context" with truth? Likewise, what good are our feelings, if not held within context of "rational thought?" ... And what are you denying your own existence here?

 

[quantumdude]

I’m going to have one more crack trying to straighten you out here.

Tom: I'll say. You're taking a thread that is supposed to be about objectivity and turning it into a circus of metaphors.

Iacchus32: No, I'm just trying to show the relationship between the "objective truth" and the "subjective good."

And you’re doing it in a whirlwind of meaningless metaphors! When people “show” things, they typically do it with some kind of reasoning. But not you. No, you try to do it with creative writing and illogic, going from light and heat to truth and goodness, respectively. The discussion of objective/subjective is only tacked on by you, by simply assigning objectiveness to truth and subjectiveness to goodness. There is no need to even bring up heat and light!

Tom: They might not have had as sophisticated understanding as we do today, but certainly people at that time knew the difference between the physical and the abstract. "Light" and "heat" are physical phenomena that are sensed. "Truth" and "good" are abstract ideas.

Iacchus32: Then what does e=MC2 mean? This is abstract, and yet doesn't it belie something physical?

For some reason, you seem to see a contradiction in these two ideas, when there quite obviously is none. If you have read any of my posts to Alexander about “causal math”, you will know that I regard mathematical relations (such as E=mc²) as a description of physical reality. Even if you had not read those posts, I think that point is fairly self-evident.

Tom: The rest of this post is just more word games. On to the next one...

Iacchus32: Yes, you putting words into my mouth ...

Stop being stupid. This is ad hominem, and a false one at that. The one and only time I paraphrased you, you responded with “You got it!”. By your own admission, I am not putting words into your mouth. Indeed, it would be quite difficult for me to put anything in your mouth, with your foot in there all the time.

Tom: Oh, I get it. If the sun weren't here, we wouldn't be here. If we weren't here, then there would be no such human things as "truth" or "goodness". And, the sun produces light and heat. Therefore, light is (objective) truth and heat is (subjective) goodness.

Put down the bong, son!

Iacchus32: You got it! (except for the part about the bong i guess?). We see by the light of the sun (a correlative of truth), and are sustained by its warmth (a correlative of good). Or, another way of putting it is, we see by the light of His Truth, and are sustained by the warmth of His Love.

Err…Actually, I posted that argument as, first of all a synopsis of your posts, and second an example of bad reasoning (hence, “Put down the bong, son!”). For crying out loud, you’re drawing a conclusion from a literary device! That is neither logic nor philosophy. In fact, it does not even rise to the level of religious opinion.

Tom: Do you have anything to say about objectivity?

Iacchus32: Yes, that a relationship exists between what is objective and what is subjective, and the one can't exist without the other, not without being complete anyway.

Finally, something that is on topic! I disagree, of course, but at least it’s something that actually has to do with the discussion.

Objective reality—by the very nature of what it means to be “objective”—can indeed exist without the subjective reality, but the converse is not true. In other words, the universe does not care if there exist conscious minds to experience it, but subjective realities depend on the existence of the objective.

Hey don't start yanking my chain if you don't want me to respond (as such). What I'm saying here is just as fundamental as the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, in fact it goes a long way to show what that difference is. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.

Yanking your chain? No, dear boy, I am trying to reason with you and trying to get you to make some sense. And no, there is nothing profound about your loose, arbitrary connection between light/heat and truth/goodness. That’s the same level of philosophy as “Life is like a box of chocolates…”. I’m sorry if you don’t see it that way.

edit: fixed a bracket and an omission

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think it would be fair to say that reality is "fixed," and yet each one of us is going to perceive it differently, and react to it differently, and ultimately add something to it -- or subtract -- in which case you can say reality is also affected (or produced) by our minds.

That is one viewpoint, namely that of idealism, which places mind first and matter second. The problem with idealism is that it requires a god. In view of a total lack of evidence of a god, I go for the flipside: materialism, which places matter first and mind second. In that case, I say not that our minds create "reality", but that material reality creates our minds.

And yet what if you were but a newly born brain cell, born of an even "greater mind" -- i.e., the microcosm of the macrocosm? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? (as an analogy anyway).

No, it doesn't sound plausible at all. There is no evidence that a mind can exist without a brain.

Isn't the mind itself "a collective" of smaller entities, called brain cells? And wouldn't it be possible for a brain cell to function on its own (under the proper conditions) if separated from the rest of the brain?

What do you mean "function"? It would have cellular functions, but it certainly would not be able to think. Consciousness is a property that emerges from a distributed network, whose elements themselves are not conscious.

 

[Another God]

*agrees with Tom*

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I’m going to have one more crack trying to straighten you out here.

Try to straighten me out huh?

And you’re doing it in a whirlwind of meaningless metaphors! When people “show” things, they typically do it with some kind of reasoning. But not you. No, you try to do it with creative writing and illogic, going from light and heat to truth and goodness, respectively. The discussion of objective/subjective is only tacked on by you, by simply assigning objectiveness to truth and subjectiveness to goodness. There is no need to even bring up heat and light!

I don't think you read the original thread very closely ...

Originally posted by kerrie
here is the definition i am referring to...yet, what i am wondering is, can objectivity be unrealistic because human beings are ultimately and absolutely subjective creatures when we observe, hear, think, feel, react and sense?

I don't see that this is anything other than a comparison between objectivity and subjectivity. And what did she get through saying in her last post? ...

Originally posted by kerrie
personally i feel that although as human beings we will never be purely objective, striving towards objectivity without denying our subjectivity is a true balance of understanding our reality...

Can't you see that this is what she's talking about?

For some reason, you seem to see a contradiction in these two ideas, when there quite obviously is none. If you have read any of my posts to Alexander about “causal math”, you will know that I regard mathematical relations (such as E=mc²) as a description of physical reality. Even if you had not read those posts, I think that point is fairly self-evident.

But it sounds like what you're saying is that you can't use an abstract idea for analogy for something which is physical? And yet what is it about objectivity except to "see" the truth? And what is it about subjectivity except to experience "the good" of that truth?

Stop being stupid. This is ad hominem, and a false one at that. The one and only time I paraphrased you, you responded with “You got it!”. By your own admission, I am not putting words into your mouth. Indeed, it would be quite difficult for me to put anything in your mouth, with your foot in there all the time.

How does one define stupidity? An unwillingness to listen perhaps?

And don't you think it's about time you dropped the condescending attitude?

Err…Actually, I posted that argument as, first of all a synopsis of your posts, and second an example of bad reasoning (hence, “Put down the bong, son!”). For crying out loud, you’re drawing a conclusion from a literary device! That is neither logic nor philosophy. In fact, it does not even rise to the level of religious opinion.

How about a "hybrid idea," you know, where the one balances out the other?

Finally, something that is on topic! I disagree, of course, but at least it’s something that actually has to do with the discussion.

I think that's the whole problem here. Just because you can't with agree with the basis of what I'm trying to say (hence the basis for what I almost always try to say), doesn't mean you have any business tossing out the rest of it. That's called rail-roading somebody.

Objective reality—by the very nature of what it means to be “objective”—can indeed exist without the subjective reality, but the converse is not true. In other words, the universe does not care if there exist conscious minds to experience it, but subjective realities

And a cold bleek universe it would be ... bereft of any life.

Yanking your chain? No, dear boy, I am trying to reason with you and trying to get you to make some sense. And no, there is nothing profound about your loose, arbitrary connection between light/heat and truth/goodness. That’s the same level of philosophy as “Life is like a box of chocolates…”. I’m sorry if you don’t see it that way.

Actually, if anything, I think you owe me an apology, "dude."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
That is one viewpoint, namely that of idealism, which places mind first and matter second. The problem with idealism is that it requires a god. In view of a total lack of evidence of a god, I go for the flipside: materialism, which places matter first and mind second. In that case, I say not that our minds create "reality", but that material reality creates our minds.

No, it's not idealism, it's a "hybrid," meaning it incorporates both sides, because no issue can only have one side -- which, is what it sounds like you're trying tell me ... Or coerce?

No, it doesn't sound plausible at all. There is no evidence that a mind can exist without a brain.

Then perhaps you better read it again. What I'm saying is isn't it possible that we, as human beings, can be viewed as individual brain cells of the "greater mind" as whole?

What do you mean "function"? It would have cellular functions, but it certainly would not be able to think. Consciousness is a property that emerges from a distributed network, whose elements themselves are not conscious.

Yet that's the whole thing, because we are not conscious of the "greater mind," i.e., the greater mind which is "consciousness itself."

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I don't think you read the original thread very closely ...

LOL

No, Iacchus, you're confusing me with yourself. I commented on the original thread, and Kerrie thought my remarks were right on.

Can't you see that this is what she's talking about?

I know exactly what she is talking about, and it has nothing to do with sunlight or any other metaphor, which is what I have been trying to tell you all along.

But it sounds like what you're saying is that you can't use an abstract idea for analogy for something which is physical? And yet what is it about objectivity except to "see" the truth? And what is it about subjectivity except to experience "the good" of that truth?

What I have been saying is that abstract ideas can be used to represent physical reality.

How does one define stupidity? An unwillingness to listen perhaps?

No, an unwillingness to listen is more like "stubborness" than "stupidity". "Stupidity" is a relcuctance or inability to think logically.

And don't you think it's about time you dropped the condescending attitude?

Don't you think it's about time to stop posting gibberish?

How about a "hybrid idea," you know, where the one balances out the other?

Sorry, but a hybrid of "illogic" and "metaphor" doesn't bring about anything.

I think that's the whole problem here. Just because you can't with agree with the basis of what I'm trying to say (hence the basis for what I almost always try to say), doesn't mean you have any business tossing out the rest of it. That's called rail-roading somebody.

I am not "rail-roading" you, nor am I dismissing what you say out of hand. I have expounded upon all my objections.

Actually, if anything, I think you owe me an apology, "dude."

Don't hold your breath. When you post nonsense, I am within bounds to call it nonsense. My comments are directed at your ideas, not at you (except my response to your ad hominem).

edit: typo

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, it's not idealism, it's a "hybrid," meaning it incorporates both sides, because no issue can only have one side -- which, is what it sounds like you're trying tell me ...

So you are talking dualism then?

Or coerce?

?

Then perhaps you better read it again. What I'm saying is isn't it possible that we, as human beings, can be viewed as individual brain cells of the "greater mind" as whole?

Oh. Well, that makes even less sense. This is just wild speculation on your part, and without some justification for that viewpoint I really have no desire to get into it.

 

[Another God]

I just wrote a whole essay on Nagel and Chalmers and how science can go about identifying subjectivity, and what it is etc...

This topic can get a little tedious.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Another God
I just wrote a whole essay on Nagel and Chalmers and how science can go about identifying subjectivity, and what it is etc...

Well...?

This topic can get a little tedious.

It's already tedious. It may as well be tediously on-topic. Out with it, man!

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Tom
Can objectivity be unrealistic? I would turn that around: I think that a lack of belief in objective reality is unrealistic. It is true that I can only prove to myself that I am conscious. Perhaps that all of reality only exists as my mental states? Bah. I reject that because, as I review the contents of my mind (the only thing to which I really have access), I see no overall blueprint of the universe. I was not born endowed with a knowledge or understanding of the laws of nature. And yet, in order to deny objective reality, I have to say that the blueprint is there, because without objective reality, all of reality is created by my mind.
...
I gave one reason above: My seeming total lack of a priori knowledge of the universe. Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge. Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.

That is ridiculous, no offense. What kind of a blueprint
do you want ? And if there was something like this - would
you not need a blueprint for that something, too ?
You are trying to reason of existence - all obsevation
through parts of itself. That makes no sense because a proof
of any kind has to be based on an independent reason(as far
as we've done it so far, at least).

Originally posted by Tom
A second reason, which is related to the first, is the problem of other minds. The notion that my mental states are the only mental states (the height of subjectivity) is untenable when faced with the evidence that other bodies that look similar to mine exhibit behaviors similar to mine under the same stimuli/stressors. For instance, when someone close to me dies (stimulus), I cry (behavior) because I am sad (mental state). When a person close to someone else dies (stimulus), that person cries (behavior). Given the frequency and plurality of these stimuli-behavior correlations, and the similarity to my own similar behavior under the same stimuli, I cannot help but conclude that the bodies I observe have mental states associated with them[/color], despite the fact that I do not have access to any mental states other than my own.

Ridiculous, no offense, for the same reason. You wish
to define the whole using constituents and yet the constituents
are also defined by the whole. These are just self-referential
"reasons". I could think of many other such "arguments"
but they are just irrelevant from the start because the
very reasoning I, apparently, use to produce them is
self-referential in terms of the same whole I'm trying to
reason about.

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[Royce]

Agreed that the reasons and reasoning Tom gives are self referential;
but, at this level of reasoning it is all that is available.
We start with, "I am." The ulitmate self referential statement.

The next question to ask; "Is are there any other 'I's?"
This is one step from being self referentioal; but, since we have only established the "I am.", We are still restricted to self referential statements because that is all the we have.

Beyound these, we can step by step deduce the universe and objective reality, all through subjective self referential reasoning that gradually gives way to more and more objective reasoning, experiment and evidence.

Once we have reached this point, ie. objective reality via subjective self referential reasoning, why do we then deny the reality of the subjective, self referential? Is this not a contradiction in reasoning?

If we deny the existence of subjectivity are we not denying our own existence?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kerrie
Oh boy, if only Lifegazer were here...

Hmm ... I wonder why kerrie brought this up in the first place? After clearly stating we were "subjective beings" -- which we are -- and asking how unrealistic objectivity was? So I somehow sensed the discussion was about objectivity versus subjectivity -- as most everyone else did by their replies -- and that the discussion was open to comments on "spirituality."

Originally posted by Kerrie
it is the scientific way to claim there is an objective reality because of what we observe outside ourselves, but ultimately that reality is being filtered through 5 (maybe 6 for some ) subjective senses that are affected by personal experiences...

Doesn't this sound like she might want to talk about "subjective experiences," just a little? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what you're saying is that realiy can only be interpreted "from within." Which to me belies the fact that there's a "spiritual reality" as well.

And here is my reply ...

Originally posted by Kerrie
logically that would be correct if you believe spirituality is not within you...i see spirituality within me...

And how can I possibly not reply to this to add clarification, because this is obviously not what I meant. And doesn't it look like she was open to a "spiritual discussion?" In which case I wouldn't have bothered with the following reply ...

No, what I'm saying is that if reality can only be perceived from within, then the understanding of that reality, and hence the understanding of ourselves, ultimately entails the "journey within," and so alludes to a greater "Spiritual Reality."

Whereas the form (truth) is external and the essence (life itself or good) is internal. Which is to say, the internal reality is far greater than the external reality -- or perhaps not while we're of "this world?" -- because it entails the "life within."

Do you think this is what it possibly means when the scriptures say, "The love of the world (external reality) puts you at emnity with God" (internal reality)?

Wow! This is it isn't it? I didn't realize I had put it so succinctly until I did the cut & paste just now. Almost a direct confrontation to those who have an aversion to such notions as an "inner-world."

So it's really not me is it? It's what I'm saying (at least in this instance) that's getting "some" people up in arms. Perhaps I'm not the one who should take offense then?

Anyway, I was going to say I couldn't understand why Tom was ragging on me so much about something which obviously wasn't out of line, but perhaps that isn't necessary now? For indeed, The Truth has been known to have this kind of effect on people.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Royce
Agreed that the reasons and reasoning Tom gives are self referential;
but, at this level of reasoning it is all that is available.

Indeed.
However, the line between science and the greater whole -
philosophy is between "closed-loop" reasoning - a certain
accepted reasoning and observation - one leads to the other and
back and provides mutual answers, and the "open-loop" reasoning
which tries to be "a reasoning without reasoning".

This is rather like trying to pull yourself (and your horse )
out of a swamp by pulling on your own hair.

Live long and prosper.