Subjective/Objective reallity

[bobhikes]

Maybe you are looking at the wrong moon
I can't understand what it means "patterns are not 100%" ?
Ok... lets try a more earthly example.

You have a fire and ice.
would you say that ice is objectively colder than the fire? or is it subjective to your pov?

I would say there is no such thing as cold only lessening degrees of heat. Ice has less energetic state than fire but both have energy that produces a heat which is actually quite high when compared with no heat or absolute zero. Temperature is objective as seen by the different scales Kelvin, Celsius or Fahrenheit. Even people, when my brother from Alaska visits in Spring or Fall he complains about the heat, when I go there in the summer I sometimes wear a sweater and am out of place.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

We all have our subjective reality.
Above all that, we have an objective reality.

subjective reality can be a belief in prayers.
it can be a belief in angels and other non-scientific concepts.

Along the years, humans objective reality became more understood and some subjective realities have been forsaken.

To me it seems, that the more one learns about the objective reality, the better he understand what is objective and what is subjective, and i assume that is why the majority of genuine scientists are atheists (these days).

would you say this suggests that the more we will be able to explain how things work, the less the need for subjective reality will become?

BACKGROUND!

Objective verses objectivity! The objective reality (should it exist) is a black box. It is unknowable in the sense of absolute knowledge. But if our assumptions are true then we can examine the input and the output.

1. What are our assumptions?
2. What is the output? (Notice I placed this second above input. We all have an output, but few understand input.)
3. What is the input?

Our paradigm of reality (objective reality) is a model. All existence, as far as we can prove, is within our mind. All is subjective. A map is a model that leads from Houston to Austin. There 1000s of such maps. Some are more accurate than others, some more complicated than others. Our unerstanding is a model, like a map. We have components (Houston, Austin) and relationships (distance, turns, elevtion, etc.).

All knowledge, thinking, understanding, is subjective modeling...based on INPUT, OUTPUT on an ASSSUMED OBJECTIVE RE

1. Assumption.....An Objetive Reality Actually Exists!!!!! This is an assumption. Furthermore, I assume that objective reality is basically as it appears to be, that it operates in a way that can be precisely and accurately described (natural laws), and that if the descriptions fail to accurately describe a phenomena, the explanations are in need of adjustment (unexplained phenomena imply a needed correction (or tweak) to our description of the internal workings of the black box (natural laws).

2. Output..We relate to the objective reality through our senses. RELATE!!!! Our conscious mind is a component of the model, and it relates to all other components. That relationship is our senses. Sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell, and many other senses for other organisms (fish have sensors that detect pressure and changes in presssure, in effect giving them motion detection.) We are part of the objective reality, but only a single component. Knowledge is based on OUR BEST UNDERSTANDING of the RELATIONSHIPS (senses) connecting us to other parts of the reality.

Some people hear a claim, and believe it. Some hear a claim, and consider it. Some hear, and test. Which brings us to input.

3. Input...We have limited control over input into the black box. If we consider the output, devise explanations on the working of the black box, we can set up tests. These tests never prove anything positive. They can prove that out tentative explanation was wrong, or that our tentative explanation was consistent, with the working of the black box.

THE OP QUESTION.
As long as there are minds, subjective reality will be prime. The components of any model may or may not be objective reality. The relationships between them are nothing more than mental concepts. There may be an Austin and a Houston, but what is a mile? What is NorthEast?

No, the more we understand the presumed objective reality, the more we need subjective interpretation. Science really is nothing more than creating the most accurate, precise, and consistent (agreed upon) models of objective reality. And at it's heart science is sifting through subjective models.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

What will you do when one contradicts the other?

Can you provide an example of such a contradiction? It would seem to depend on the specifics.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I'd say that is exactly why the more we think we know, the less we do. The more out of touch we are with the subjective, the more dissociated from reality we become.

An understandable sentiment. But it's not 'the more we think we know' but rather 'the way we think we know.'

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

What is important wrt religion in the final analysis is the transcending of the apparent duality of subjective and objective experiences of reality to realize non-dual reality.

That's a nice sentiment on face value. But of course it would mean that 'the self' does not exist.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No i did not.
I

For example:

many years ago, we used subjective reality to explain the sun: a big chunk of coal, a giant light bulb in the skies, a god and many other subjective realities.
They had a need for this subjective reality to explain the objective one.

But today, we have a very different way of examining whether a reality is subjective or objective.
Today we have no need for a subjective reality for the sun, or the moon (although it is nice at times ).

I believe our explanation (description) of the sun today, is no less subjective than it has ever been. It is merely more difficult to dismiss with doubt, alternate explanation, and no less subject to refinement! It is also no more 'knowable.'

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I Believe there are several techniques to mediate.
I actually practice mediation quite a bit ( i can assume it is different then your technique though )

So if you mediate in order to quite your "mind", doesn't it make it passive? can't understand the comparison. can you please elaborate a bit more?

lets say i look at a chair.

Obviously, the chair seems to be external to me.. it is.

I Disagree.
It is objectively there, and it is objectively in its physical form. but it can subjectively be perceived as a table for example.

Ok.

It is indeed subjective. i agree.



Self aware as being aware that you are you?
Do you think that is something that is unique to humans?

Which is a word we use to describe we are aware of things. how is that being something incarnated?

Thanks for the explanations.
But i can't see how it relates to the OP?

Yes, there are many meditation techniques, but those with the purpose of stilling the mind are truly religious in nature.

Still mind meditation practice when realized is free from thought, when there is no thought, there is no thinker, when there is no thinker, there is no 'I' during the period of the still mind.

Yes, I explained from the get go that objects are perceived by the mind objectively and subjectively sequentially and/or simultaneously.

Yes, self awareness is 'I' awareness. I doubt that it is unique to humans.

There is higher awareness than that which identifies with the incarnate body, ie self awareness, which is the whole purpose of still mind meditation, to transcend self awareness and realize pure awareness.

For those souls who have not yet began to awaken from the 'slumber' of exclusive self identification with their body, then they are yet unaware of the glory of transcendent awareness, a peace that is beyond understanding.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's a nice sentiment on face value. But of course it would mean that 'the self' does not exist.

If you mean by 'the self', the personal self, it does not mean that it does not exist, only that there is higher awareness than that which identifies with the physical body as its single reference point in time and space for the ultimate understanding of universal reality. But yes, during the period of transcendence, the 'I' does not arise so there is no self awareness.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

If you mean by 'the self', the personal self, it does not mean that it does not exist, only that there is higher awareness than that which identifies with the physical body as its single reference point in time and space for the ultimate understanding of universal reality.

Yes, by 'the self' I i did mean the personal self, which is the only self any of us are aware. Conjecture aside, what do you mean by higher awareness? It seems that if I am aware, and I am aware at my hightest state then the term 'higher awereness' is nothing but mental masterbation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, by 'the self' I i did mean the personal self, which is the only self any of us are aware. Conjecture aside, what do you mean by higher awareness? It seems that if I am aware, and I am aware at my hightest state then the term 'higher awereness' is nothing but mental masterbation.

Sorry, I added something to my post before I was aware you had responded, I hope it helps, if not get back to me.

I repeat it again for you here. But yes, during the period of transcendence, the 'I' does not arise so there is no self awareness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I Can't understand what you mean by absolute reality... can you please explain it?

That is quite easy, Segev. If things are not absolute reality, then perhaps atoms are? That was the view of a philosopher called Kanada and his philosophy is known as 'Vaisheshika' (Vaisheshika - Wikipedia). For him the whole universe was nothing but atoms (Anu and Paramanu, these are the words that we use in Hindi today for molecules and atoms).

If atoms are not the absolute reality, then perhaps energy is and possibly that makes the atoms (Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia).

That energy is Brahman and sole constituent of all things in the universe. That is the absolute reality, the non-duality which is behind all seeming duality in the universe. More, if you have questions.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, by 'the self' I i did mean the personal self, which is the only self any of us are aware. Conjecture aside, what do you mean by higher awareness? It seems that if I am aware, and I am aware at my hightest state then the term 'higher awereness' is nothing but mental masterbation.

I think when people use the term "higher" in regards to states of awareness it simply means more inclusive, or that more objects in that awareness are able to be held. For instance, a waking state is a higher state of awareness than the sleeping state. When you are asleep, generally speaking you are unaware you are asleep (lucid dreaming aside). But when you wake up, you become aware of the dream state. Rather than being the subject within the dream, your consciousness now holds that dreamer as an object of your awareness. Therefore is is a "higher state of awareness".

I think what best describes "higher states of awareness" is this. Robert Kegan put it this way, "The subjective of one level, becomes the object of the subject of the next level". In a lower state of awareness, the one experiencing and seeing, is himself not being seen. But when that one seeing in that state, becomes seen, you become aware of that state of awareness itself, you have stepped above it. It therefore is "higher", in the developmental sense. Make sense?

BTW, I very much agree with your post about the relationship of the subjective to the objective. I assume you are familiar with Wilfred Sellars and his attack on the "myth of the given"? I was reading this in an article on him this morning relating it to the topic of this thread:

In his view the observation vocabulary/theoretical vocabulary distinction is merely methodological and is, moreover, highly malleable; it therefore possesses no particular ontological force. There is no given, so it can play no semantic role. Meanings are functional roles in language usage, and nothing in principle prevents a term that might originally have arisen as part of a theory from acquiring a role in observation reports. The well-trained physicist “just sees” an alpha-particle track in a cloud chamber as directly and non-inferentially as the well-trained child just sees a dog. Furthermore, what is observable depends on the techniques and instruments employed, and these are often loaded with theoretical baggage. “Pure” observation uncontaminated by theory is outside our reach.
​

From here: Wilfrid Sellars (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Here's also some interesting information about what this assault on the "myth of the given" (or myth of the pre-given world) is challenging, and underscores why we are saying you cannot exclude the subjective in any understanding of the world: Direct and indirect realism - Wikipedia

 

[dianaiad]

Mostly critical thinkers (or similar) atheists.
Those who think they can prove god doesn't exists, are on the same "side" of those who think they can.
(as both are not basing their reality on actual evidence or reason (this is my own p.o.v of course and it got nothing to do with the fact i am an atheist. i became an atheist because i adopted this p.o.v)

See above.
And can you give an example of someone who acted in the name of atheism or theism?

Having brought this up in other forums and venues, I imagine that I am going to get a lot of flack for this one, but OK.

on the mild side...those who go to court to get rid of religious displays...ALL religious displays...on public property are generally 'acting in the name of atheism." those who advocate "Freedom FROM religion" are doing so, when their own world view IS atheistic. Yes, some theists join those protests/whatever, but they aren't acting in opposition to religion (that is, 'acting in the name of atheism') but acting in opposition to every OTHER religion. This is fairly common, actually.

From this mild view we go all the way to the Stalins of the world, who go after theists and forbade worship of any deity because they a: could and b: there is no god to worry about. These are performing actions 'in the name of atheism."

"Because there is no god" and "in the name of atheism" are absolutely the same thing, for all intents and purposes, like saying ' in the name of keeping your clothes dry, take 'em off before you go swimming," and "if you go swimming before you change, you will get your clothes wet" are the same idea/statement.

As i see it, you are considered an atheist or theist based on your world view, not the other way around.
(unless you consider a minority that are psychotic in their way of thinking).

What do you mean by points?

points on the continuum between ignorance of all ideas regarding deity and active, violent opposition to the idea. Lots of positions (points) possible between those two extremes.

Example?

a. the atheist who simply doesn't believe there's a deity but says to his theist neighbor: 'eh...your silliness doesn't bother me any; I'm barbecuing over here. You bring the potato salad."

b. the atheist who believes that religion/theism is pretty stupid, theists have funny opinions, and likes to argue with them in religious forums

c. the atheist who is insulted greatly by any sight or sound of theistic expression and uses legal methods (lawsuits, mostly) to try to get religious displays removed so he doesn't have to see them anywhere.

d. See "C," but modify that to only suing about stuff on public property that he has to help pay for.


Many points on that atheistic continuum. Theism, however, isn't much of a straight line continuum. It's more like a language tree with a whole BUNCH of interlocking branches.

There is only one objective truth. (lol.. "there can be only one")

Agreed. A very Platonic POV, that. Problem is, even Plato didn't have a clue what the 'true chair' was.

Introducing opinion
Objective reality is not biased to opinions, thoughts, hopes, beliefs, imagination etc.
Unless you believe that our entire existence only exists because we believe it exists... (which falls on the same "category" of other great speculations that cannot be falsified)

Well, no...it exists. We exist. But all objective reality must be experienced, interpreted and communicated through subjective means. Therein lies the problem with those who only hold to objective evidence. What they are really holding to is someone's subjective opinion about that objective evidence, which is seen differently by everybody who looks at it.

Seems to me that 'objective' is more like a consensus of public subjective opinion about something they declare to be 'fact.'

Scientists know this. It's why theories can be revisited and modified.

 

[Segev Moran]

I would say there is no such thing as cold only lessening degrees of heat.

What do you mean? that's exactly what cold means: object that produces less heat energy than another is called : Colder.
What else can cold mean? (apart from the slang use of the word like "don't be cold" or having a "cold")

Ice has less energetic state than fire but both have energy that produces a heat which is actually quite high when compared with no heat or absolute zero.

Obviously. so does tap water to ice. (Some experiments suggest though, that absolute zero is not really "unbreakable", so you can go below absolute zero).

Temperature is objective as seen by the different scales Kelvin, Celsius or Fahrenheit.

I Agree.
It is actually based on the movement of atoms. assuming 0k degrees, the atoms would be stand still. Thats what make -A0 interesting.

Even people, when my brother from Alaska visits in Spring or Fall he complains about the heat, when I go there in the summer I sometimes wear a sweater and am out of place.

Micro evolution

Please disregard the attached image, its a bug in the post and i can't seem to remove it

 

[Segev Moran]

Can you provide an example of such a contradiction? It would seem to depend on the specifics.

Age of earth

 

[ChristineM]

We all have our subjective reality.
Above all that, we have an objective reality.

subjective reality can be a belief in prayers.
it can be a belief in angels and other non-scientific concepts.

Along the years, humans objective reality became more understood and some subjective realities have been forsaken.

To me it seems, that the more one learns about the objective reality, the better he understand what is objective and what is subjective, and i assume that is why the majority of genuine scientists are atheists (these days).

would you say this suggests that the more we will be able to explain how things work, the less the need for subjective reality will become?

Subjective equates to opinion

Reality equates to things that exist

Used together you create an oxymoron

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Sorry, I added something to my post after you had responded, I hope it helps, if not get back to me.

I think when people use the term "higher" in regards to states of awareness it simply means more inclusive, or that more objects in that awareness are able to be held. For instance, a waking state is a higher state of awareness than the sleeping state. When you are asleep, generally speaking you are unaware you are asleep (lucid dreaming aside). But when you wake up, you become aware of the dream state. Rather than being the subject within the dream, your consciousness now holds that dreamer as an object of your awareness. Therefore is is a "higher state of awareness".

I think what best describes "higher states of awareness" is this. Robert Kegan put it this way, "The subjective of one level, becomes the object of the subject of the next level". In a lower state of awareness, the one experiencing and seeing, is himself not being seen. But when that one seeing in that state, becomes seen, you become aware of that state of awareness itself, you have stepped above it. It therefore is "higher", in the developmental sense. Make sense?

BTW, I very much agree with your post about the relationship of the subjective to the objective. I assume you are familiar with Wilfred Sellars and his attack on the "myth of the given"? I was reading this in an article on him this morning relating it to the topic of this thread:

In his view the observation vocabulary/theoretical vocabulary distinction is merely methodological and is, moreover, highly malleable; it therefore possesses no particular ontological force. There is no given, so it can play no semantic role. Meanings are functional roles in language usage, and nothing in principle prevents a term that might originally have arisen as part of a theory from acquiring a role in observation reports. The well-trained physicist “just sees” an alpha-particle track in a cloud chamber as directly and non-inferentially as the well-trained child just sees a dog. Furthermore, what is observable depends on the techniques and instruments employed, and these are often loaded with theoretical baggage. “Pure” observation uncontaminated by theory is outside our reach.
​

From here: Wilfrid Sellars (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Here's also some interesting information about what this assault on the "myth of the given" (or myth of the pre-given world) is challenging, and underscores why we are saying you cannot exclude the subjective in any understanding of the world: Direct and indirect realism - Wikipedia

Thank you for the reference. I was not familiar with Sellars. Also much appreciated Kegan's viewpoint.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Age of earth

You must be a few grades above me. I'm not sure how the subjective truth of the age of the earth contradicts the objective truth of same.

Then again, if I'm 52 but I feel and act 32, do I contradict myself, truthfully?

 

[Segev Moran]

You must be a few grades above me. I'm not sure how the subjective truth of the age of the earth contradicts the objective truth of same.

Then again, if I'm 52 but I feel and act 32, do I contradict myself, truthfully?

If someone will ask you for your age, and you'll answer 32, then yes. you do contradict yourself. and the objective reality is you are 52 and not 32

One can say: the earth looks as if it is only 6000 years. that is fine. but when one say: the earth is 6000 yo, it contradicts the objective reality that the earth is at least a few billions of years old.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

If someone will ask you for your age, and you'll answer 32, then yes. you do contradict yourself. and the objective reality is you are 52 and not 32

One can say: the earth looks as if it is only 6000 years. that is fine. but when one say: the earth is 6000 yo, it contradicts the objective reality that the earth is at least a few billions of years old.

Ah, we call that denial! Is there a difference between a 'subjective reality' and an 'uninformed opinion?'

[edit; add] or subjective reality and misinformed opinion. Say I've convinced a friend I'm 48. They are not aware their subjective reality contradicts the reality of my 52 years. Is subjective reality a real thing then? It is simply lack of knowledge.