Subjective/Objective reallity

[Polymath257]

It depends on the situation. Sometimes the objective truth is not important.

The subjective truth is what I experience whether illusion or not. For example the color pink doesn't actually exist in the color spectrum but I still see it. Is it important that it doesn't exist? Not really.

There are times when the objective truth is important, critical. Just not all that often really.

So where objective truth is not important, I think happiness would be the choice of human self-interest.

Fair enough. I am on the side of objective truth.

I would much rather know an unpleasant truth than be happy with a pleasant falsehood.

 

[Segev Moran]

I'm honestly conflicted here. So our entire experience of reality is subjective. Objective reality is something we have to conceptualize.

Only when we don't have enough knowledge.

Yet it is important to objectively validate what we know.

Agreed.

This provides certainty to whatever we claim as truth. If I want to prove something, I have to prove it objectively

Agreed.

which basically means I have to show that my understanding of how something works provides consistent repeatable results.

Or a Theory in other words.
Yet a theory doesn't lead to an objective truth. if we knew the objective truth, we wouldn't have come up with a theory that tries to conceptualize it.
I agree that we have very little known objective truths. and what i try to suggest is that the more we know about objective realities, the less we need to "subjectively conceptualize objectivity".

So my experience is still subjective.

And they will ever be. unless we are all somehow find a way to share one another's experiences.

What makes it objective is showing that subjective experience to be consistent.

I Disagree.
Even if your experience will be very consistent, and even if many others experience it the same as you, doesn't make it objective yet.

Temperature for example.

Great example

Whether I feel hot or cold is subjective.

it is indeed you subjective feeling.

We can measure it through some mechanical means.

That will give us an objective measurement of the temperature. this measurement is not taking into consideration anyone's feeling

What we measure will be consistent. However I can never actually experience that consistency.

Depends on what you define experience.

Sometimes a certain temperature will feel hot to me. Sometimes it will feel cold.

In both cases, there is an objective reality that causes you to feel hot or cold. it is not a matter of choice. (as far as we know so far )

So while we can prove an objective reality though it's consistency. We can only conceptualize it, never directly experience it.

Again, only if we lack the knowledge.

The shape of the earth, we can conceptualize it, never directly experience it.

Unless we are able to fly to space and witness the shape of it (just like going for a movie).

Objective reality is important because it allows us to progress and validate our knowledge about how things work.

Agree

Subjective reality is also important because it is the reality of what we experience.

It is indeed, and will always be. yet something important is not necessarily someone you need.

Love, happiness, pain, contentment. These are not objective things.

Yep

However in someways these subjective things seem more important than what we objectively know.

That is because what we objectively know is very very little.

I mean which is really more important? Possessing conceptual knowledge of the shape of the earth or the ability to be happy?

I would say both.
which is more important:
being happy or preventing the elimination of humans?
both are important just as much.
what worth will it be if we all survive yet are all unhappy?
what worth will it be if we are all happy but humanity will end?
I think the trick is finding the way to be as happy as possible while learning about our reality as much as we can [/QUOTE]

 

[Nakosis]

Only when we don't have enough knowledge.

What is knowledge except concepts about reality? For example I have a concept about what an atom is. My concept maybe more or less accurate to the reality of what an atom is. However I can never directly perceive an atom.

Or a Theory in other words.
Yet a theory doesn't lead to an objective truth. if we knew the objective truth, we wouldn't have come up with a theory that tries to conceptualize it.
I agree that we have very little known objective truths. and what i try to suggest is that the more we know about objective realities, the less we need to "subjectively conceptualize objectivity".

I have a different view of truth. What I accept is true is that reality is constantly changing. What is true not at this moment, may not be true at some other moment. I expect anything accepted as an objective truth may at some point change. So what is accepted as truth can't be relied on forever. It has to be constantly validated.

I Disagree.
Even if your experience will be very consistent, and even if many others experience it the same as you, doesn't make it objective yet.

What then makes it objective?

In both cases, there is an objective reality that causes you to feel hot or cold. it is not a matter of choice. (as far as we know so far )

I used to live where it was cold. I could when I was younger cause myself to feel warm.

So object reality... When I was 13, I was playing baseball in a open field barefoot. I played the entire game. at at the end of the game someone pointed out to me that my foot was covered in blood. Turns out I had a piece of glass from a broken bottle maybe a inch wide and half as long stuck in the bottom of my foot. I didn't feel any pain from that and don't know how long I had been running on it. It fascinated me that I could ignore or alter perceptions caused by object reality. So object reality need not affect my subjective experience. I don't know the extend that this is possible. There are yogis that can control their perception of object reality.

Again, only if we lack the knowledge.

Knowledge as I see it is conceptualized reality.

Unless we are able to fly to space and witness the shape of it (just like going for a movie).

We'd have to be large enough to perceive it in it's entirety, or far away enough that we'd lose definition. Also, I've have eye surgery and see straight lines as wavy. My mind compensates for this and perceives wavy lines as straight, unless I consciously make an effort to see the waves. What I see casually is not the reality. It is something my mind has interpreted as reality for my conscious awareness.

It is indeed, and will always be. yet something important is not necessarily someone you need.

Yep

That is because what we objectively know is very very little.

I would say both.
which is more important:
being happy or preventing the elimination of humans?
both are important just as much.
what worth will it be if we all survive yet are all unhappy?
what worth will it be if we are all happy but humanity will end?
I think the trick is finding the way to be as happy as possible while learning about our reality as much as we can

From my experiences, the mind creates a perception of reality that can't be trusted really. We can to some degree alter that perception of reality. What I question is the perception provide by the mind we have no conscious control over. If I can consciously change my perception of reality to a limited degree, how much more is the sub-conscious mind capable of altering my/our perception of reality?

I think we have to trust that perception, but I don't so much. If I can't trust my perception of reality, what basis is left to me really, to define objective truth?

 

[MonkeyFire]

We all go our way and create subjective law.
We all return and we find out we all have the same laws; objective.

 

[Polymath257]

What is knowledge except concepts about reality? For example I have a concept about what an atom is. My concept maybe more or less accurate to the reality of what an atom is. However I can never directly perceive an atom.

You actually never directly perceive anything. When you see, your eyes detect light and processes it before sending the information to the brain. When you hear, your ears detect and process sound before sending that information to the brain. So, you do not directly hear a dog that is barking. Your ears detect a sound and your senses and brain interpret that sound as a dog barking. You don't directly see objects in front of you. Your eyes detect light and your eyes and brain process that information to give an image of what you 'see'.

Every sensory mode has 'illusions' associated with it. None are even close to being perfect. We see a very small part of the electro-magnetic spectrum, so we don't even detect infra-red or ultraviolet, let alone radio waves or gamma rays. Our eyes have only three types of color detectors, so we often 'see' two physically different colors as the same. Our retinas automatically detect borders, relative brightness, and movement, leading to a host of optical illusions playing on that automatic processing. Our attention can affect whether the information gets to our consciousness, and expectations can affect how it is processed. We seem to be programmed to see faces, even where no face exists.

The overall process is quite far from perfect. And this is the case in different degrees for ALL of our senses.

So, no, your senses will not be able to detect an atom without help. But if we put an electron microscope into the information pathway between you and the atom, you will. Your eyes cannot detect infra-red, but if you put night vision goggles on, you will be able to. Yes, there is another mechanism between the object and you, but there was already quite a bit of mechanism between already.

What then makes it objective?

I will delay this for a bit.

I used to live where it was cold. I could when I was younger cause myself to feel warm.

So object reality... When I was 13, I was playing baseball in a open field barefoot. I played the entire game. at at the end of the game someone pointed out to me that my foot was covered in blood. Turns out I had a piece of glass from a broken bottle maybe a inch wide and half as long stuck in the bottom of my foot. I didn't feel any pain from that and don't know how long I had been running on it. It fascinated me that I could ignore or alter perceptions caused by object reality. So object reality need not affect my subjective experience. I don't know the extend that this is possible. There are yogis that can control their perception of object reality.

As I noted before, your attention and our expectations can affect how we interpret what our senses present to us. Sometimes, our senses do processing even before presenting the information. And they can be wrong in how they do this.

<snip>

From my experiences, the mind creates a perception of reality that can't be trusted really. We can to some degree alter that perception of reality. What I question is the perception provide by the mind we have no conscious control over. If I can consciously change my perception of reality to a limited degree, how much more is the sub-conscious mind capable of altering my/our perception of reality?

In some situations, a great deal. Many drugs will play with perceptions, for example.

I think we have to trust that perception, but I don't so much. If I can't trust my perception of reality, what basis is left to me really, to define objective truth?

Damn good question. I'm not going to answer it in full.

Let's do an easy case where we *know* our perception is wrong. Take an optical illusion. How do we know our senses are wrong? If, for example, we have an illusion where two lines of the same length *look* to be different lengths, we can use a different sensory mode (touch) or an assumption of constancy and the same mode (by covering up the parts producing the illusion) to show the inconsistency. The *objective* reality of the sameness of the lengths is determined by some other sensory experience that we 'trust more'. We can see and rely on a measuring stick to show the lengths to be the same even if our eyes trick us.

So, we use our senses as a first approximation. We test our perceptions through as many different modes as we can. And we can get information that is reliable *up to a certain approximation*. That will then let us create other ways to detect or measure things (measuring sticks, clocks, etc) that will occasionally show where our perceptions get things wrong. This allows us to get a *better approximation*. This creates a cycle of better and better approximations and better and better detectors that extend and correct our senses. At each stage, we test all previous stages. And we realize there are other people with perceptions similar to our own and their perceptions and measurements agree with our own. This produces a 'consensus reality' that has been perceived and measured repeatedly and is considered to be 'trustworthy'.

Objective truth is, hopefully, what we approach via these successive approximations.

 

[Segev Moran]

What is knowledge except concepts about reality? For example I have a concept about what an atom is. My concept maybe more or less accurate to the reality of what an atom is. However I can never directly perceive an atom.

One day you will be able to. then it will become objective.

I have a different view of truth. What I accept is true is that reality is constantly changing.
What is true not at this moment, may not be true at some other moment.

If it will be so, the objective truth will change.

I expect anything accepted as an objective truth may at some point change. So what is accepted as truth can't be relied on forever. It has to be constantly validated.

I Agree.

What then makes it objective?

A Fact that is not based on one's emotions or idea rather on clear evidence.

I used to live where it was cold. I could when I was younger cause myself to feel warm.

How?

So object reality... When I was 13, I was playing baseball in a open field barefoot. I played the entire game. at at the end of the game someone pointed out to me that my foot was covered in blood. Turns out I had a piece of glass from a broken bottle maybe a inch wide and half as long stuck in the bottom of my foot. I didn't feel any pain from that and don't know how long I had been running on it. It fascinated me that I could ignore or alter perceptions caused by object reality. So object reality need not affect my subjective experience. I don't know the extend that this is possible. There are yogis that can control their perception of object reality.

The objective reality is that you wee injured.
The subjective is how you interpreted the injury.
Same for the temperature example...
If you are in a room and it is air conditioned to 25c...
The objective truth is that the room is at 25c. how your body perceives that fact, is subjective.

Knowledge as I see it is conceptualized reality.

Depends, i guess.

We'd have to be large enough to perceive it in it's entirety, or far away enough that we'd lose definition. Also, I've have eye surgery and see straight lines as wavy. My mind compensates for this and perceives wavy lines as straight, unless I consciously make an effort to see the waves. What I see casually is not the reality. It is something my mind has interpreted as reality for my conscious awareness.

From my experiences, the mind creates a perception of reality that can't be trusted really. We can to some degree alter that perception of reality. What I question is the perception provide by the mind we have no conscious control over. If I can consciously change my perception of reality to a limited degree, how much more is the sub-conscious mind capable of altering my/our perception of reality?

I think we have to trust that perception, but I don't so much. If I can't trust my perception of reality, what basis is left to me really, to define objective truth?

Exactly my point.
As we cannot rely on one's perception of reality we need to only consider things that are not bound to it.

 

[Nakosis]

One day you will be able to. then it will become objective.

If it happens, it happens. But even the fact of perception becomes a mental concept. Something happens, I create a concept of understanding about the event. Then the concept is what affect my thinking from then on. If I repeat the observation a number of times, that concept becomes more reliable, but my knowledge of the event is still a concept.

If it will be so, the objective truth will change.

Well then if we agree the object truth isn't forever.

A Fact that is not based on one's emotions or idea rather on clear evidence.

I agree but from past experience, it hard to be certain one is completely free of bias. That's why even things I think I've accepted objectively, I'll continue to question.

How?

Just convinced myself I was feeling warmth.

The objective reality is that you wee injured.
The subjective is how you interpreted the injury.
Same for the temperature example...
If you are in a room and it is air conditioned to 25c...
The objective truth is that the room is at 25c. how your body perceives that fact, is subjective.

That's fine. My point is, my experience of life is subjective. Regardless of objective reality. A very small percentage of objective reality will I ever know about. What I will know is my subjective experience. I'm born, I live, I die. My entire life will consist of what I subjectively experience. Objective reality won't have much importance unless I want it to. If I don't, so what, if I want to believe in gods, ghosts, ufo abduction, those things will be the reality of my experience. Belief will be my reality, even a belief in object reality. Put it this way, I don't know that a belief in object reality would be better/worse than belief in a supernatural reality. I'll get through life with whatever my experience is and still die.

Exactly my point.
As we cannot rely on one's perception of reality we need to only consider things that are not bound to it.

We really have no choice except to rely on our perception of reality. That's all we have. Folks convince themselves that that perception can be relied on because they believe in an object reality.

If you believe object reality is your truth then it's your truth. I never stopped questioning my truth. I question the truth of object reality because as human beings, we can't escape our reliance on perception. As you've pointed out, we can't rely on it. Yet people feel it's ok to rely on it in the case of "object reality".