The Heart of Reality: The Mysteries of Life

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... Here you can see my two level definition of truth and facts. The idea that the glass is on the table is, to the observer a truth. But this doesn't mean that it is an absolute truth - the act of observation still forces it to be subjective. Rather, it is more probable to the witness that it is true than it is not. Another witness may confirm the sighting, but it is still not absolutely truth. What if three more witnesses appear to say the glass is not on the table? It seems that what is regarded as true by observation may not be in fact the truth - meaning that you can declare and define your own sense of truth, but it is impossible to acknowledge any absolute truth itself.
Does that vaguely make sense?

Wow! It sounds like everything's up for grabs! Why don't we just declare it the end of the world and go on a looting rampage then!

And what do you mean by subjective? Isn't the word "object" derived from "objective?" Meaning if you looked at something in terms of it being "an object," then aren't you looking at it objectively? Whereas the object then becomes subjective, but only to the "objective view," which occurs through you (field of view). In other words isn't objectivity basically the process of observation?

Aren't we in fact speaking about that which is observable from the outside (objectivity) versus that which is "experienced" on the inside (subjectivity) and is not readily observable from without?

 

[FZ+]

I probably should be stricter about my word use.

From my dictionary:
Subjective:
1. influenced by personal feelings (and therefore perhaps unfair).
2. existing only in the mind.
3. (tech grammar) of the subject.

Objective:
1. existing outside the mind.
2. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
3. (tech grammar) of the object.

So I seem right...
That reminds me... must raise to LG sooner or later about his gross abuse of the word objective in his mind hypothesis...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I probably should be stricter about my word use.

From my dictionary:
Subjective:
1. influenced by personal feelings (and therefore perhaps unfair).
2. existing only in the mind.
3. (tech grammar) of the subject.

Objective:
1. existing outside the mind.
2. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
3. (tech grammar) of the object.

So I seem right...
That reminds me... must raise to LG sooner or later about his gross abuse of the word objective in his mind hypothesis...

When I gave the example of the glass, that's what it means by being objective, because it exists outside of my mind, I can clearly see what it is, and it doesn't involve my personal feelings to acknowledge it. Otherwise your idea of objectivity is virtually unobtainable. Who is capable of objectivity then if it has to rely on an external source outside of the mind? We still have to rely on our abstract brains to interpret the information.

 

[FZ+]

Otherwise your idea of objectivity is virtually unobtainable.

Precisely! That is the heart of my argument. Total objectivity, absolute truth are hence unobtainable!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely! That is the heart of my argument. Total objectivity, absolute truth are hence unobtainable!

Then what is the point of being objective, if not to strive for the truth? ... Then you obviously aren't denying that total objectivity and absolute truth does not exist, just that it can't be experienced in human terms. Right?

Yet the quality of truth is ascertainable by virtue of the capacity of humans to experience objectivity, at least to some degree, and, as evidenced by the high regard we place on our ability to to this, then it must be regarded as highly desirable indeed.

So what does that speak about the Universe as a whole, since it seems to have an inherent need (through us) to establish cognizance and objectivity? Is it possible that there is someone or something that is capable of viewing the whole picture at a glance? You know, something there to spur us on to be creative as well. Why not? And why don't we seem to have much trouble conceiving of the whole Universe in our own minds? ... Yet how could that be, with something so finite as ourselves? Perhaps becasue we're not speaking about what is finite, but what is infinite instead?

 

[FZ+]

Then what is the point of being objective, if not to strive for the truth? ... Then you obviously aren't denying that total objectivity and absolute truth does not exist, just that it can't be experienced in human terms. Right?

Correct. But absolute understanding of truth is unreachable. That's my point.

Yet the quality of truth is ascertainable by virtue of the capacity of humans to experience objectivity, at least to some degree, and, as evidenced by the high regard we place on our ability to to this, then it must be regarded as highly desirable indeed.

Yes, truth is desirable. But you cannot measure the degree to which man does experience objectivity.

So what does that speak about the Universe as a whole, since it seems to have an inherent need (through us) to establish cognizance and objectivity?

Ah, now you have made a logical jump. Why must the curiosity of man, a survival value that made us so successful fit into an overarching pattern in the universe? Why do you consider humans so significant? Why can you transpose human values onto the universe? I have repeated that we do not establish objectivity, by rather by establishing cognizance we attempt to internalise objectivity. Going back to the first point, I assume total objectivity does exist, and if it exists, it must exist outside of us.

Is it possible that there is someone or something that is capable of viewing the whole picture at a glance?

Only if the universe itself is conscious, but of course in a different way from us. An awareness without a mind to lend subjectivity. Which is a possibility, but without any evidence, not a plausibility.

You know, something there to spur us on to be creative as well. Why not? And why don't we seem to have much trouble conceiving of the whole Universe in our own minds?

Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds. We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ah, now you have made a logical jump. Why must the curiosity of man, a survival value that made us so successful fit into an overarching pattern in the universe? Why do you consider humans so significant? Why can you transpose human values onto the universe?[/color] I have repeated that we do not establish objectivity, by rather by establishing cognizance we attempt to internalise objectivity. Going back to the first point, I assume total objectivity does exist, and if it exists, it must exist outside of us.

But we do it all the time, which is why I believe we are now coming into conflict with the environment.

Only if the universe itself is conscious, but of course in a different way from us. An awareness without a mind to lend subjectivity. Which is a possibility, but without any evidence, not a plausibility.

Well let's just say there were a creator, would there be a need for Him to be objective? Then again I guess He couldn't be anything but "wholly objective," in that the whole of Creation would be "subject to" Him.

Let me ask you this. Is the idea of God considered by science to be absolute? (if it were true). If so, then would the "absence of God" be considered an absolute as well? The reason why I'm asking this is because I don't believe it's possible to accept it either way, accept by putting the bits and pieces together and see if they add up. In which case science seems to be in favor of the "absence of God." And yet I think the problem of God is solvable, although I think it requires the need for a "different approach."

Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds.[/color] We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

But still the notion of it exists, and it isn't that difficult to imagine once we grasp the initial idea.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds. We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

I do not know the entire infinite series of pi, but still I can conjecture knowledge about the infinite series. For instance I can conjecture that this infinite series contains somewhere a series of 1000 successives digits of '0'. I don't know what place that series would start, but I do know, it exists.