What is objective?

[shunyadragon]

Golly gee, thanks mister.

I'll just assume that the initial post I commented on was a mistake on your part that you just didn't want to rectify or address.

Please clarify, at this point this post does not make sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think of objective information as anything that seems reliable, repairable and reproducible, sort of like asphalt roads, door hinges etc. To a lesser extent facts can be objective.

Even feelings can be considered objective sometimes if you are in touch with your feelings.

This is questionable. Feelings sometimes can be objectively diagnosed as a mental illness or condition like depression, and treated, in general feelings are subjective of the mind only.

 

[David T]

Take everything away that is subjective.

What's left is objective.

That's to easy kilgore and not keeping in the spirit of RF. Therefore I totally agree EXCEPT, everything you think is subjective and that only leaves my objective view based on Bayesian statistics!!! Now THAT reply back atcha is keeping in alignment with the majority here and I feel now both oddly normal and stupid at the same time.

 

[godnotgod]

With the experience of suffering.

Who is it that suffers?

 

[godnotgod]

http://www.ivtnetwork.com/sites/default/files/What Is Objective Evidence.pdf

"Objective evidence is what one observed, what actually happened, or what did not happen. In science, test methods and objective data are documented to allow others to perform the tests and compare results (objective evidence). By this method, others can objectively determine whether the conclusions are valid.

Sounds nice, but those 'valid' conclusions have many times proven to be invalid when new information is discovered. So 'objectivity' seems to be a victim of paradigm in many cases, some very important ones. Today, there are many physicists calling for an end to the materialist paradigm; that it is no longer valid in light of findings in Quantum Mechanics.

 

[crossfire]

This is questionable. Feelings sometimes can be objectively diagnosed as a mental illness or condition like depression, and treated, in general feelings are subjective of the mind only.

http://www.ivtnetwork.com/sites/default/files/What Is Objective Evidence.pdf

"Objective evidence is what one observed, what actually happened, or what did not happen. In science, test methods and objective data are documented to allow others to perform the tests and compare results (objective evidence). By this method, others can objectively determine whether the conclusions are valid.

DEFINITIONS REVIEWED The following are some example definitions of “objective evidence” from literature and other sources:
• “Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.” This is a business type look at objective evidence.
• “Real evidence, also known as demonstrative or objective evidence; this is naturally the most direct evidence.” This is a legal definition.
• “Objective evidence is data that shows or proves that something exists or is true. Objective evidence can be collected by performing observations, measurements, tests, or by using any other suitable method.” This definition comes from the International Organization for Standardization’s Plain English definitions.
• “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical, and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.” This is how objective evidence is defined for science."

Emotions can be measured by asking the person experiencing them to observe them and describe them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Please clarify, at this point this post does not make sense.

Unintentional irony is the most enjoyable kind.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sounds nice, but those 'valid' conclusions have many times proven to be invalid when new information is discovered.

Ah . . . not 'proven.' science proves nothing.

That is nature of science and the advancement of the objective knowledge. Most often prior knowledge is not wrong, but incomplete, as in the advancement in physics from Newtonian physics to the Theory of Relativity to contemporary Quantum Mechanics,

So 'objectivity' seems to be a victim of paradigm in many cases, some very important ones. Today, there are many physicists calling for an end to the materialist paradigm; that it is no longer valid in light of findings in Quantum Mechanics.

Does not follow science is the beneficiary of the advancement of knowledge based on new objective evidence.

This is a clear over statement and misrepresentation of Quantum Mechanics, which is the result of scientific methods and objective evidence, and remains a part of the material nature of our physical existence.

Materialism is a metaphysical philosophical assumption, and not an issue in the Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism.

Actual, most physicists and cosmologists favor versions of Metaphysical Naturalism, and are predominantly agnostic or atheist. There are of course also Theists, Deists, Meists, ifists, and whateverist, but nonetheless they for the most part hold a unified view of science disagreeing only on the details

 

[shunyadragon]

Emotions can be measured by asking the person experiencing them to observe them and describe them.

This of course remains subjective of the mind only of the person experiencing them, which by the way confirms the definition of the 'subjective.'

 

[crossfire]

This of course remains subjective of the mind only of the person experiencing them, which by the way confirms the definition of the 'subjective.'

One can, however, do an objective/statistical analysis of reports of people's subjective experiences and find patterns of commonality.

 

[godnotgod]

Ah . . . not 'proven.' science proves nothing.

That is nature of science and the advancement of the objective knowledge. Most often prior knowledge is not wrong, but incomplete, as in the advancement in physics from Newtonian physics to the Theory of Relativity to contemporary Quantum Mechanics,



Does not follow science is the beneficiary of the advancement of knowledge based on new objective evidence.

This is a clear over statement and misrepresentation of Quantum Mechanics, which is the result of scientific methods and objective evidence, and remains a part of the material nature of our physical existence.

Materialism is a metaphysical philosophical assumption, and not an issue in the Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism.

Actual, most physicists and cosmologists favor versions of Metaphysical Naturalism, and are predominantly agnostic or atheist. There are of course also Theists, Deists, Meists, ifists, and whateverist, but nonetheless they for the most part hold a unified view of science disagreeing only on the details

Well, if not exactly 'proven', then 'shown', or 'revealed'.

Newtonian physics (ie 'biliard ball physics') was pretty much presented as 'fact'.

So, according to what you're saying, we can never establish certitude via 'objectivity'.

'Incomplete' science, unless presented as such, is essentially wrong.

Most physicists are materialists. A handful, such as Goswami, Capra, Haramein, and others see the 'material world' in spiritual terms.

I recently saw a video of 10 physicists each offering their own theory of cosmology, at the end none of them agreeing with each other.

 

[godnotgod]

With the experience of suffering.

The experience of suffering is the experience of a sentient being, who is completely integrated with the entire Universe. So his consciousness is also not separate from the Universe. Common view wants to say that conscious beings evolved out of a dead universe, but perhaps it is more like conscious beings evolved out of a conscious Universe. Science still cannot tell us how non-material consciousness emerged from a 'material' world.

"You did not come into the world; you came out of it"
Alan Watts

 

[Willamena]

So a bit of an open ended question what is objective?

Evidently, it is a word used, variably, to refer to a thing as true, exterior, public, and/or brute fact.

Conversely, subjective is a word used to refer to a thing as illusory, interior, private, and/or explainable.

 

[crossfire]

Where does your 'subjective sentient mind' end and the Universe begin?

With the experience of suffering

The experience of suffering is the experience of a sentient being, who is completely integrated with the entire Universe. So his consciousness is also not separate from the Universe. Common view wants to say that conscious beings evolved out of a dead universe, but perhaps it is more like conscious beings evolved out of a conscious Universe. Science still cannot tell us how non-material consciousness emerged from a 'material' world.

"You did not come into the world; you came out of it"
Alan Watts

Does the universe experience suffering?

 

[godnotgod]

Does the universe experience suffering?

Absolutely! You and I and everything else are what constitutes The Universe.

"The yellow snake coils from the water, and all is refreshed, far and near"
Incredible String Band

 

[crossfire]

Absolutely! You and I and everything else are what constitutes The Universe.

"The yellow snake coils from the water, and all is refreshed, far and near"
Incredible String Band

Does coal suffer under the geological pressures that transforms it into diamond?

 

[shunyadragon]

One can, however, do an objective/statistical analysis of reports of people's subjective experiences and find patterns of commonality.

These remain subjective experiences themselves, and yes subjective experiences are subject to objective/statistical analysis of reports of peoples subjective experiences and find patterns such as personal tastes in food and clothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

The experience of suffering is the experience of a sentient being, who is completely integrated with the entire Universe. So his consciousness is also not separate from the Universe. Common view wants to say that conscious beings evolved out of a dead universe, but perhaps it is more like conscious beings evolved out of a conscious Universe.

Bold statement has no constructive purpose and meaning. The common view?!?!?! From what perspective? Your odd description of a dead universe could not be objectively differenciated from a subjective claim of a conscious universe. The most likely simple answer if the universe likely exists simply as we experience it.

Many higher mammals definitely do experience suffering.

Everything is pretty much 'completely integrated into the universe' regardless of how one philosophically describes our universe from Materialism to Theism.

Science still cannot tell us how non-material consciousness emerged from a 'material' world.

Though there remains many questions to resolve science doe provide an adequate explanation of the evolution of consciousness through the evolution of the brain and nervous system. There is a distinct increase in consciousness as the complexity and the nature of change in the brain increases. For example, most higher mammals dream, and as consciousness complexity increases some primates and, of course, humans recognize themselves in a mirror.

"You did not come into the world; you came out of it"
Alan Watts

A philosophical perspective ok, but does not change the physical origins of the mind and consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

I thought this is a good post to respond to concerning the assertion of many believers in Eastern philosophies and religions.

Objects are not 'things in themselves', as all such objects co-arise simultaneously together and are interconnected with everything else, which means that no such objects possess an inherent self-nature as a separate 'thing'. For example, a rock, is empty of any 'rock nature'.

This requires subjective assumption explained further below.

As for 'material' objects, Quantum Physics has now revealed that all particles are none other than standing waves, created by fluctuations within the fields in which they are found. IOW, there is no 'material' reality. All such material reality is virtual reality, 'a superposition of possibilities'. So the old Newtonian applecart of 'truth' has now been completely overturned.

The Newtonian view is not over turned, and Quantum Mechanics does not create a virtual reality. It is not 'none other than standing waves,' It describes the energy involved 'descriptively' from the scientific view in term of standing waves, which is not a 'virtual reality.'

The 'manner of speaking and thinking' about what we perceive as 'objects' and 'things' is only a mental construct that we mistake for reality.

Manner of speaking presenting a subjective religious view of 'objects' and 'things' is only a mental construct that we mistake for reality' is an over reach of selfish logic and a religious bias.

Of course, the Hindus have told us that this so-called 'material' world is maya and lila for over 4000 years.

The Hindus 'tell us' no such thing! Many believe this is the case.

The reality is those who make the claim that every thing is material as from the Philosophical Naturalist assumption, and those that claim everything is illusion, mental, or simply consciousness represent anecdotal assertions concerning the ultimate nature of existence of which they are actually clueless like everyone from the fallible human perspective.

I support the reality of the belief that the ultimate nature of reality is like the Taoist describe the Tao. If you claim to know the Tao it is not the Tao. From the fallible human perspective we are not able to define the ultimate nature of reality one way nor the other,[/QUOTE]

 

[David T]

Evidently, it is a word used, variably, to refer to a thing as true, exterior, public, and/or brute fact.

Conversely, subjective is a word used to refer to a thing as illusory, interior, private, and/or explainable.

We use it generally only as a process of human thinking or perceptions. Someone posted whether or not faith was the backbone of science. I said no experience is. What we percieve and create in context to our experience, is subjective narrative to our experiences. Thats generally identical in religion. They claim experience and that experience, is defined by a couple thousand years of philosophical musings narratively.

So my 2 bits after my rAmbling muse (sorry i do that sometimes ) is that we have some idea objective exists some how. I might say nature is objective into itself objective and we are subject subjective to it. Certainly religion in current form doesn't think that and what often dresses as science seems unaware of that as well. One better understand God, nature, cosmos are all the same thing or we have have bad science arguing with bad metaphysics which bad is good.