What Are Your Perspectives on Objective Reality?

[Rade]

but you say that one issues first and the other second... such is not the meaning of simultaneity. neither arises first or second, as they are mutually arising within each other.

What I am saying is that perception of the One must proceed conception of the One, and that the simultaneity results when perception forms union with conception, at that moment in time, we get:
[subjectivity <------> objectivity]. But this is all very abstract and I may be false in where my thinking is taking me--perhaps in a circle ?

 

[sameandnot]

i see, what you are saying.
as i see it:
"objectivity" is defined thusly, because reality is conceptualized as "objects", by a subject who has perceptions.
therefore, objectivity obtains its existence from subjectivity; the subjective conception of the perception of reality, thusly objectified, is objectivity.
objectivity is contained within subjectivity.
there is no difference between subject and object.

so, what is the reality?

 

[quantumcarl]

The statement "I think therefore I am" is insufficent evidence for any kind of existence. It does not provide support for the concept of the existence of the subjective-self or of an "objective-reality".

No jury, court, lab or otherwise would accept that a thought exists because it thinks it does... This would be accepting prejudicial bias and be outside of reason. It would be cerebropomorphic (if that's a word).

It is each individual's experiences that help them decide if they exist or anything else exists (including subjectivity and objectivity).

No one can prove that these concepts exist because the only proof of the many things we think we know, for each individual, is an amorphic thought or string of thoughts. And thoughts could not provide a rough-draft let-alone (a) proof that anything exists not even the thought itself.

 

[vanesch]

The statement "I think therefore I am" is insufficent evidence for any kind of existence.

The statement by *someone else* is of course insufficient, but for one self, it should do, no ? The very fact that you have subjective experiences should be proof that those subjective experiences exist. I would even say that it is the ONLY thing you REALLY know for sure: that your subjective experiences exist.
Of course, it is totally impossible to convince something or someone else that they exist ; especially since you might not even be totally sure that the someone or something you try to convince even has an existence itself. But I don't see how you can deny to yourself the existence of your own subjective experience.

And thoughts could not provide a rough-draft let-alone (a) proof that anything exists not even the thought itself.

I don't see how you can arrive at that. An experienced thought exists, as an experience, no ? Otherwise you wouldn't experience it in the first place! It doesn't mean that the object of the thought exists, but the very subjective experience of having a thought does have existence if you experience it, no ?

 

[quantumcarl]

The very fact that you have subjective experiences should be proof that those subjective experiences exist. I would even say that it is the ONLY thing you REALLY know for sure: that your subjective experiences exist.

That would be the subjective argument for existence but just because a thought says it exists does not mean it does. There needs to be secondary, direct evidence separate from thought.

We experience our thoughts. We experience experience but no one else can prove we do nor can we prove that others experience these things.

The only proof we have of "experience" is the hypothesis that suggests that "we think we experience thought". And thoughts remain unproven to exist other than the fact that it is thought to exist. This is true for all objectivism. It is reliant upon subjective analysis. When objectivism is applied to the idea of subjectivism the objective investigation stops due to a lack of evidence.

An experienced thought exists, as an experience, no ? Otherwise you wouldn't experience it in the first place! It doesn't mean that the object of the thought exists, but the very subjective experience of having a thought does have existence if you experience it, no ?

No, you "think" you have experienced thought etc... In most circles, this is insufficent evidence of existence.

Subjectivity and objectivity are built on beliefs and faith, not proof. That's it, as far as I can tell.

 

[vanesch]

That would be the subjective argument for existence but just because a thought says it exists does not mean it does.

Ok, let's assume that the thought you are experiencing doesn't exist, as an experience. How can you experience a non-existing experience ? A non-existing experience being something that is not experienced of course (because the fact of being experienced is all that is required for the "existence" of an experience).

 

[quantumcarl]

Ok, let's assume that the thought you are experiencing doesn't exist, as an experience. How can you experience a non-existing experience ?

I can imagine a "non- existing experience" in the same manner that you have come-up with the idea of a "non-existing experience" on your own.

All I've pointed out is that, under objective scrutiny, a statement like

"I think I experience existence, therefore I do exist"

does not hold up as evidence of an existence.

Then again, everything I've claimed does not hold up under objective scrutiny. This is because my opinion is wholey and completely a regional and individual rumination of my subjective calculations on any matter.

These calculations leave no trace of addmissible evidence because anyone considering the evidence only "thinks" the evidence exists or that it may support an objective claim to an objective reality... of some sort.

 

[sameandnot]

and you would have the experience of having imagined a non-existing experience, which contradicts the idea that it is really non-existent.

 

[vanesch]

I can imagine a "non- existing experience" in the same manner that you have come-up with the idea of a "non-existing experience" on your own.

I want to make a difference between the existence of the experience itself, and the suggested content of the experience. It is not because I have a dream of a sportscar that my sportscar exists ; however, I find it hard to deny that the dream of the sportscar, as an experience, exists.
As such, I can think of "non-existing experience" which doesn't give existence to a "non-existing experience" ; however, the having of a thought of a non-existing experience, can, at that moment, hardly be denied, no ?

What's (to me) sufficient for "an experience to exist" is that it is experienced. What else would it mean for "an experience to exist" ? And if it is experienced, that's then sufficient to establish its existence.

 

[quantumcarl]

What's (to me) sufficient for "an experience to exist" is that it is experienced. What else would it mean for "an experience to exist" ? And if it is experienced, that's then sufficient to establish its existence.

The thread asks for views on "objective reality". Is this what you would term as an objective reality... or a subjective one?

 

[vanesch]

The thread asks for views on "objective reality". Is this what you would term as an objective reality... or a subjective one?

Ok, I agree that we drifted off a bit. Clearly this is a subjective reality (only available to the entity that is experiencing it) - and the point was that solipsism only acknowledges a subjective reality. It is because some poster (Rade) in post #5 had IMO a misunderstanding of what solipsism was about (I answered that in #11), that a discussion on solipsism followed.

However, there is of course a relationship to the original post. The point is that solipsism is undeniable (or unfalsifiable) - as such, it is sometimes considered a useless concept, but I think that that is wrong, because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong. So objective reality always will remain a hypothetical concept. Nevertheless, the concept of "objective reality" is a strong organizing principle, so it does very well as a *working hypothesis*. In fact, physics (and science in general) is the pushing through to the extreme of that working hypothesis, namely that our subjective reality finds its origin in an objective reality. One has to admit that it works very well.

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

 

[quantumcarl]

Ok, I agree that we drifted off a bit. Clearly this is a subjective reality (only available to the entity that is experiencing it) - and the point was that solipsism only acknowledges a subjective reality. It is because some poster (Rade) in post #5 had IMO a misunderstanding of what solipsism was about (I answered that in #11), that a discussion on solipsism followed.
However, there is of course a relationship to the original post. The point is that solipsism is undeniable (or unfalsifiable) - as such, it is sometimes considered a useless concept, but I think that that is wrong, because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong. So objective reality always will remain a hypothetical concept. Nevertheless, the concept of "objective reality" is a strong organizing principle, so it does very well as a *working hypothesis*. In fact, physics (and science in general) is the pushing through to the extreme of that working hypothesis, namely that our subjective reality finds its origin in an objective reality. One has to admit that it works very well.
As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

Thank you for your eloquent clarification of how we have arrived where we are in this thread.

This brings me to what I tried to point out earlier, in another thread, which is this:

What lies beyond consciousness is the knowledge most of us are unable to acknowledge due to the biological nature of our consciousness and what we peceive as the physical restrictions of what is perceived as a physical universe.

There is knowledge we are unaware of or unconscious of because, so far, this information is perceived to threaten the stability and survival of our species. So, true to the mechanism of natural selection, our brains and our condition as a species has selected to dis-acknowledge the knowledge which remains outside of our range of consciousness in favour of more convenient, physiopomorphic concepts which support survival.

This is what an objective reality is: our construct which fits the parameters and boundaries of our perceived physical condition. However, to be able to say so speaks of another type of objectivity that could be defined as utilizing that information which is outside of our biological consciousness.

True objectivity aligns itself with nothing more than truth. And truth is only discernable by using a stand-point of detached observationalism. A state that is unbound by physical or aphysical interests and bound only by that which describes an overall truth with regard to existence.

 

[sameandnot]

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.

we know that "objective reality" is invented by the subject, don't we?
or else, who came up with the concept that the world was full of "objects"

so, we see that it is at least an illusion, that "objective reality" is real, because "obective reality" is an idea, and the idea is never the reality, but, rather, the idea is derived from and points to the reality.

so we can say that the idea "objective reality" is invented, and further, the belief that it is Real, is, in fact, illusory.

secondly, the subjective can be considered an "object", but the "object" is an idea and therefore not Real. The subject, we all agree, is Real, so if the subject is not an "object/idea" what is it?

we have built the idea of "objectivity" around the idea that the subject is a body. the body is an idea/ a working hypothesis, which forms the foundation of the idea of "objective" reality.

is the subject a body? or does the subject use a body? is the subject a mind? or does the subject use a mind?

the contemplation of these questions will, surely, yield a totally different perspective of Reality, than "objective" reality, so what is the Reality?

Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

 

[Rade]

... so what is the Reality? ...Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

Yes, I agree--but with a few modifications (not corrections but fine tuning). The Reality as you state it must be "name-less" (do birds and ants give names to the Reality they perceive ?). The name-less Reality entangles with the human senses (as with many higher animals that have similar senses) as things that "exist" (e.g., existents--name-less existents). The mind then takes those name-less existents (specific parts of the holism of Reality) and first, as you say "differentiates" them from other "existents" (most of this process is stored in the unconscious), but then the more important second phase of the consciousness, it "integrates" them into CONCEPTS. Thus, I agree with your thought--the Reality is the name-less of that which exists.

 

[Rade]

There are no multiple solipsists. There is just your subjective experience in solipsism, which does not even have to have a material carrier such as a brain.

No, this is incorrect--you make up your own definition of solipsist--read the definition from Webster--the "self" , is defined as "the identity, charcater, or essential qualitites of any person or thing". By definition (Webster) the solipsist holds that "they exist" as a "self", as an identity (mind+body+soul+etc.), as a thing that exists. What you argue against is not solipsism, so your argument in no way relates to my post above. Again, the definition that you need to falsify: (1) That solipsism is defined (Webster, unabridged) as: the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self.

This argument is of course fatally flawed here. In the solipsist picture, you do not even have a body.

Nonsense--as just explained--by definition the solipsist always hold that they have a "self" (mind+body+soul+you add it), in fact, this is the only thing that does exist. I can only conclude that as a good solipsist, you have invented in your own mind your own definition of what you are, but unfortunately what you have invented thus logically falsifies the philosophy you hold. Thus none of what you say here negates my post above--you will have to try again with another argument. But of course, because solipsism is based on a logical contradiction, it is by definition falsified--the only way to save solipsism is to argue outside logic.

 

[Rade]

... because solipsism (and the fact that there is no way to prove it wrong) teaches us something. It teaches us about the relativity of the concept of objective reality. From a solipsist viewpoint, objective reality is an illusion, and there is no way to prove that idea wrong.

NO, solipsism only teaches us the definition of FOLLY. It is easy to falsify, it is by definition a logical contradiction. Solipsism does not teach about relativity of reality, existence teaches about the relativity of reality because by definition it can never be known except as a monism between the subject+object. And, it is incorrect to say that from the solipsist viewpoint objective reality is an illusion, as seen from my post above, the solipsist holds that they exist as a "self", which is an object that they hold exists (true the only one in the universe, but 1=1 and there they are, conforming to the Law of Identity A = A, 1 = 1, solipsist A = solipsist A). Now, the rest of your post makes logical sense--it is the thinking of the rational scientist.

 

[quantumcarl]

As such, the working hypothesis of an objective reality is a useful concept (even though we will never be able to know whether it is an illusion or not), and we build the whole organization of our subjective reality (the one we KNOW OF, exists) around the concept of objective reality from which it is supposed to be issued.
we know that "objective reality" is invented by the subject, don't we?
or else, who came up with the concept that the world was full of "objects"
so, we see that it is at least an illusion, that "objective reality" is real, because "obective reality" is an idea, and the idea is never the reality, but, rather, the idea is derived from and points to the reality.
so we can say that the idea "objective reality" is invented, and further, the belief that it is Real, is, in fact, illusory.
secondly, the subjective can be considered an "object", but the "object" is an idea and therefore not Real. The subject, we all agree, is Real, so if the subject is not an "object/idea" what is it?
we have built the idea of "objectivity" around the idea that the subject is a body. the body is an idea/ a working hypothesis, which forms the foundation of the idea of "objective" reality.
is the subject a body? or does the subject use a body? is the subject a mind? or does the subject use a mind?
the contemplation of these questions will, surely, yield a totally different perspective of Reality, than "objective" reality, so what is the Reality?
Is the Reality that which is nameless? undifferentiated? until the mind "cuts it up" and names the "parts"?

I count about eighty-three (exagration) occasions where you use the word "real" in your post.

Objective analysis is all about finding out what "real" is and what is "real". You use the word like you know what it means.

Please define "real" in your own words.

 

[sameandnot]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

 

[Rade]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

Yes. Another way to state this: Reality is that which Exists independent of thought (mind). We can never know "pure" Reality, it comes to thought as an entanglement of the object [O] plus subject as [O+S]. But, and here is where confusion rains, just because humans cannot know pure Reality, does not mean it does not exist, it depends on what philosophy you hold. But now, what is it exactly that "exists" (or as sameandnot says--"what is") ? All philosophy must start with at least one fundamental axiom, you either accept it or not. Once you accept it you develop the rest of your philosophy from it. Of course, you could also develop a philosophy from 2 or 3 or any number of fundamental axioms, each with equal weight. The philosophy I hold has only one fundamental axiom (it thus meets Occum's Razor), but it does have corollary axioms that logically connect to allow all aspects of the philosophy to be developed (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, etc.). And the axiom is "existence exists", from the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Now, I do not hold that all that Rand holds is logical, I may even agree that most of what she holds is not logical, but when she starts her thinking, her philosophy, with the axiom "existence exist", I see no logical reason not to follow the logic of where that path takes thinking. Some have tried to argue that "existence exists" is not an axiom, I find all such arguments wanting.

 

[quantumcarl]

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

Thank you for your thought on the matter.

Real is what the truth is.

The truth is what "real" is? The truth is real?

Probably. But, it is hard to know what the truth behind a matter really is. There are so many influences that create an event that it is difficult to research every one of them all and compose a picture of the truth or what is real with regard to an event or matter.

It may sound egocentric but, whatever a person is experiencing, true or not, can be considered real, by my standards. It is their truth.

A person in a flight simulator experiences the Gs and the sensation of flight and the cockpit can be as real as the real thing.

They are not truly flying but it is a real experience and a real approximation of flying a fighter jet... or whathaveyou. It has to be to prepare the pilot for actual flight time.

So, deception is real. So is truth. All things and the absence those things are real.

So, when you say:

the real is what is, and not what that idea or thought of it is.

would you agree that the idea or the thought of what real is is as real as real itself?

The thought that one has been healed because some Jamacian dude pulled chicken guts out of a fold in your abdomen is real. Often the thought of being healed is all some people need to be healed.

What a person thinks may not be true and may not have any basis in reality but, it can have profound effects on their body anyway... it becomes very real in this sense.

It is this kind of power that can be found in an objective reality... from this reality you can objectively utilize the subjective reality of the mind.

 

[Rade]

...would you agree that the idea or the thought of what real is is as real as real itself?

No, I would not agree that the idea of real is "as real" as real itself. I view that which is "real itself" (let us call it R) is just that, Real itself (e.g. it does not require any thing outside itself to cause it to be Real--such as a human observer). However, what you call the "idea of real" must be an entanglement of that which is Real itself (R) with that which forms the idea (let us call it I). Thus, the idea of real is the set [R+I]. So, we have:
[R] = Real itself, which is independent of idea
[R+I] = Idea of Real itself which is not independent of Real itself.
So the answer to your question become clear, the Idea of Real, while it is a real object within the mind [R+I] is not "as real" as Real itself [R]. The logical reason being that what is Real itself does not require an idea to exist, while an idea, with nothing real to idealize, is a contradiction of terms. For this reason, what is Real itself always takes primacy over an ideal of what is real, they are not identical concepts.

 

[quantumcarl]

No, I would not agree that the idea of real is "as real" as real itself. I view that which is "real itself" (let us call it R) is just that, Real itself (e.g. it does not require any thing outside itself to cause it to be Real--such as a human observer). However, what you call the "idea of real" must be an entanglement of that which is Real itself (R) with that which forms the idea (let us call it I). Thus, the idea of real is the set [R+I]. So, we have:
[R] = Real itself, which is independent of idea
[R+I] = Idea of Real itself which is not independent of Real itself.
So the answer to your question become clear, the Idea of Real, while it is a real object within the mind [R+I] is not "as real" as Real itself [R]. The logical reason being that what is Real itself does not require an idea to exist, while an idea, with nothing real to idealize, is a contradiction of terms. For this reason, what is Real itself always takes primacy over an ideal of what is real, they are not identical concepts.

Terrifically asstute of you to point this out, however, a thought or idea is real in the sense that it is the product of stimulus and also serves as stimulus in a very real way and in many ways.

A thought or idea can stimulate any number of other real events or matters. In fact, ideas and thoughts are real events and they are also created by matter as well as affect matter in many ways... observed or not.

Ideas are not dependent upon being observed, they are a result of real neurotransmitters and stimulus of various kinds... but this does not make them any less real since neurotransmitters and stimulus of various kinds are a result of something else... also. Both sets are as real. Both come under the heading "real"... or "R" if you prefer.

So, in conclusion, I will suggest that you have not studied what an idea or the thought process is, in physical terms or terminology. Perhaps you have succummed to the general, failing view that ideas are not real events or matters. Try telling that to Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.

Furthermore, my reply was to sameandnot if you and he arethesame please let sweetvirgogirl know... or are you sheaswell?

 

[sameandnot]

hmmm... how to answer such a question... we are confronted with Reality all of the time, yet we are usually in a dreamworld/"imaginary world" of our thought, and fail to recognize it, as it is.

can we say that "thought" creates a hue, a distortion, of what the Real is, in itself? that what is perceived by a "subject" is subject to particular pre-conceptions and prejudices and judgments, which are not of the "thing" itself, but are, rather, superimposed on the "thing"? it appears that we can say this much about subjectivity.

now, this model demands that the subject be of such a kind that it (the subject) "colors" the world with it's fantasies, desires, fears, anxieties, etc., thereby distancing it (the subject) from the Reality of the situation (and existence on the whole). a "delusional distance", if you will, where the perception of Reality is distorted, proportianally to, the "farther away" one's perception of it (Reality) is.

this creates a whole "world of delusions" and mis-takings.

on a further, disjointed but connected position, canwe say that:
what is Real, must exist. Also, it cannot not exist.

not to say that transient and fleeting existences are entirely unReal, but only that their "realness" comes from the Reality... which is not prone, or subject or fated, to non-existence.

What is the Reality that is never non-existent? the "ground of being", or whatever...

 

[hypnagogue]

NO, solipsism only teaches us the definition of FOLLY. It is easy to falsify, it is by definition a logical contradiction.

How so? Can you demonstrate for us how solipsism can be shown to be false?

And, it is incorrect to say that from the solipsist viewpoint objective reality is an illusion

It depends on how one interprets the relevant terms. If objective reality is understood to mean something like "that which exists independently from one's subjective experience" then a solipsist would deny that anything like objective reality exists.

 

[Rade]

...Perhaps you have succummed to the general, failing view that ideas are not real events or matters. Try telling that to Henry Ford or Thomas Edison...Furthermore, my reply was to sameandnot...

No, as I stated, ideas are "real", but, they are not "as real" as Reality itself--which was the comment you posted that I argued against. The mind invents "real ideas", it discovers "Reality", the two concepts are not identical. Second, this is a "forum" not your personal dialog with others.

 

[Rade]

How so? Can you demonstrate for us how solipsism can be shown to be false? ... It depends on how one interprets the relevant terms. If objective reality is understood to mean something like "that which exists independently from one's subjective experience" then a solipsist would deny that anything like objective reality exists.

Well, the argument to show how solipsism as a way of thinking is a logical condradiction has been developed and modified over the course of these discussion post numbers with "Vanesch": 5,11,14,17,24,30,41,45,46. Perhaps, let me know why you think it cannot be false and I will enter again into the conversation. As to your second point, yes, definitions of terms are important, and the definition of solipsism from Webster in post no. 24 shows that the solipsist holds that nothing is real but self. Now, since by definition (Webster), a self is an identity of body+mind (an object), solipsism does in fact hold that one objective reality exists in the universe, the self--and, as I develop the argument in my posts from # 24, it is this assumption that leads to its falsification.

 

[sameandnot]

whatever, let's just lock it.

 

[quantumcarl]

No, as I stated, ideas are "real", but, they are not "as real" as Reality itself--which was the comment you posted that I argued against. The mind invents "real ideas", it discovers "Reality", the two concepts are not identical. Second, this is a "forum" not your personal dialog with others.

Yes yes, my mistake. Egocentrifical forces gets the better of me sometimes.

Let's see: is there such a thing as "as real"? Real is real as far as I know.

You put forth that the idea of what is real is not as real as what is real.

I put forth that... the idea of "what is real" is as real as real itself.

I mean if an obsession with the idea of cancer gives you cancer, is it any less real than cancer itself?

Is there a way to prove which one of us is correct?

Or, democratically, we might decide that both views are correct because there is no way to prove which idea is incorrect. These are equal ideas.

Oh, dear, there's that cunnundrum again... both assertations are ideas. So both are on equal footing and both are unprovable.

Sounds a bit like communism to me... but, more like the foundations of a democracy... where all things are equal.

Sounds like easy pickin's for someone who wants to win an argument all the time. Just get into philosophy where there is no way to prove who is right and who is wrong.

Anyway, merry Solstice, Quanza, Hanukha, Christmas, Xmas, Tongo Tongo etc etc...

 

[Rade]

1. You put forth that the "idea of what is real" is not as real as what is real.
2. I put forth that... the idea of "what is real" is as real as real itself.
Is there a way to prove which one of us is correct?:

Suppose I have an "idea" of God, but have never seen God. Would my "idea" of what is real, be "as real" as the "Real God" ? Or, suppose I have an "idea" of how the nucleus of a simple atom, such as deuteron [NP] is put together, would my "idea" of what is real about [NP] be "as real" as the Real [NP]--that is, how it really is put together independent of my idea about it ? All I am saying here is that I hold that the answer is no to such questions--and I do not see anything in your comments that logically would cause me to change this viewpoint--but I am most clearly open to suggestions. And Merry Christmas to you also, if anyone wanted humans to use their minds to think about things, it was the man whos name is attached to this holiday.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Yule Brenner?
Yule Gibbons?
Yule know who when you think of them?