YOU DO NOT SEE OBJECTIVE REALITY OBJECTIVELY

[Nakosis]

How about this: In order to observe, we need an observer (subject) and an observed (object). Therefore, objective observation is a contradiction in terms, because it would require an observation without an observer.

The/our brain is the observer prior to us being consciously aware of the observation.
Consciously, what we observe is not reality. It is a prediction of what reality is structured in a format that is easily understood by our conscious awareness so we can, usually, effectively interact with this reality.

Or how about this: Our sensory organs are only capable of receiving very specific types of data, and no others.
Therefore, all sensory data we receive is already filtered through the capabilities and ideosyncracies of our sensory organs.

objective here is the definition of objective I believe applies - b: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
Do you believe that our sense perception is not derived from actual physical objects?

Or how about this: The fact that we perceive reality in a structured, patterned way that makes intuitive sense to us suggests two possible states - either reality is already structured and patterned so that we can make sense of it, or our minds pre-structure and pre-pattern all our impressions of reality so as to make intuitive sense of it; in either case, our perceptions of reality are being structured in exactly such a way as to conform to our subjective understanding of it.

Yes, our brain uses a subconscious process to predict a reality and present it to our conscious awareness that has developed since we were first born. This does not mean our brain does not receive objective sensory in formation. Only that if it does, we are not directly aware of it. Because of this we have learn how to trick the brain into seeing reality as something it is not through optical illusion as was previously presented. This doesn't mean the non-conscious part of our brain was fooled by the objective sensory date we received.

 

[Kooky]

The/our brain is the observer prior to us being consciously aware of the observation.
Consciously, what we observe is not reality. It is a prediction of what reality is structured in a format that is easily understood by our conscious awareness so we can, usually, effectively interact with this reality.

Do you have any kind of evidence that this prior observation actually happens, or it is simply a presumption to allow for a subjectless, pre-conscious, more perfect form of observation? Also, why do you presume that subjects only exist consciously?

objective here is the definition of objective I believe applies - b: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
Do you believe that our sense perception is not derived from actual physical objects?

I believe that the strictly linear stimulus-response model you are basing your reasoning on is not an accurate reflection of what's going on when we perceive things. I also believe our perception is known to be limited, inaccurate, and strongly influenced by subjective expectations.

Yes, our brain uses a subconscious process to predict a reality and present it to our conscious awareness that has developed since we were first born. This does not mean our brain does not receive objective sensory in formation.

All information is being gathered by an observing subject via that subject's sensory organs and that subject's brain, so I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "objective" sensory information.

Only that if it does, we are not directly aware of it. Because of this we have learn how to trick the brain into seeing reality as something it is not through optical illusion as was previously presented. This doesn't mean the non-conscious part of our brain was fooled by the objective sensory date we received.

See my response to the very first portion of your post. Where did you get your evidence for an apparently infallible (or at least untrickable) nonconscious perceptory apparatus?

 

[Augustus]

Do you have anything to support that statement?

The same evidence that shows humans don't see, hear, etc. things objectively such as the illusion posted above. Our mind is constructing what we perceive rather than simply objectively displaying it.

In what way do you think they are being more 'objective' rather than simply using their subjective capabilities more effectively?

Consciously, what we observe is not reality. It is a prediction of what reality is structured in a format that is easily understood by our conscious awareness so we can, usually, effectively interact with this reality.

That is also true of the subconscious.

 

[Nakosis]

The same evidence that shows humans don't see, hear, etc. things objectively such as the illusion posted above. Our mind is constructing what we perceive rather than simply objectively displaying it.

In what way do you think they are being more 'objective' rather than simply using their subjective capabilities more effectively?

Because information is information. Do you believe there is a fault in our sensory mechanisms?

That is also true of the subconscious.

Not what I've read so far but I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments.

 

[Augustus]

Because information is information. Do you believe there is a fault in our sensory mechanisms?

They are imperfect certainly, but this is not necessarily a 'fault'.

There is a balance between useful enough while requiring less energy and brain power and perfection requiring more energy and brain power.

The more information processed the more processing power required.

“We don’t have the necessary machinery, and we wouldn’t even want it, to process carefully all of the amount of information that we’re constantly bombarded with,” says Susana Martinez-Conde, a neuroscientist and illusion researcher at SUNY Downstate Medical Center.

Think about what it takes to perceive something move, like the objects in the above animations. Once light hits the retinas at the back of our eyeballs, it’s converted into an electrical signal that then has to travel to the visual processing system at the back of our brains. From there, the signal travels forward through our brains, constructing what we see and creating our perception of it. This process just takes time.

“The dirty little secret about sensory systems is that they’re slow, they’re lagged, they’re not about what’s happening right now but what’s happening 50 milliseconds ago, or, in the case for vision, hundreds of milliseconds ago,” says Adam Hantman, a neuroscientist at Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Research Campus.

If we relied solely on this outdated information, though, we wouldn’t be able to hit baseballs with bats, or swat annoying flies away from our faces. We’d be less coordinated, and possibly get hurt more often.

So the brain predicts the path of motion before it happens. It tells us a story about where the object is heading, and this story becomes our reality.​

The athlete in the zone is relying on such subjective predictions, they are just more skilled at this than the average person.

“It’s really important to understand we’re not seeing reality,” says neuroscientist Patrick Cavanagh, a research professor at Dartmouth College and a senior fellow at Glendon College in Canada. “We’re seeing a story that’s being created for us.”

Most of the time, the story our brains generate matches the real, physical world — but not always. Our brains also unconsciously bend our perception of reality to meet our desires or expectations. And they fill in gaps using our past experiences.​

"Reality" is constructed by your brain. Here’s what that means, and why it matters.

Not what I've read so far but I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments.

Look back at the checkerboard illusion, are you saying you are making a conscious judgement to wrongly see the 2 squares as being different colours?

Of course not, it's caused by multiple subconscious processes.

What evidence have you seen that the subconscious is "objective"?

 

[Nakosis]

Do you have any kind of evidence that this prior observation actually happens, or it is simply a presumption to allow for a subjectless, pre-conscious, more perfect form of observation? Also, why do you presume that subjects only exist consciously?


I believe that the strictly linear stimulus-response model you are basing your reasoning on is not an accurate reflection of what's going on when we perceive things. I also believe our perception is known to be limited, inaccurate, and strongly influenced by subjective expectations.



All information is being gathered by an observing subject via that subject's sensory organs and that subject's brain, so I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "objective" sensory information.


See my response to the very first portion of your post. Where did you get your evidence for an apparently infallible (or at least untrickable) nonconscious perceptory apparatus?

Still being researched, and the results and not conclusive. here is a sample.

Unconscious categorization of sub-millisecond complex images

However most of my belief comes in the form of personal experience. Playing ping-pong.

I played for many hours against many opponents of different skill levels. Of course everything initially was slow, objective, conscious responses. Then one day I was playing against an Iranian opponent, who I've face many times before and always beat me with vicious slams. I returned it, high, slow which he slammed again. Again I returned it. This happen twice more. He was so impressed that he stopped playing and started smiling. I had transitioned from responding consciously to responding subconsciously.

Eventually I found I didn't have to focus on the game at all. I could daydream, I could watch as a detached observer. I was surprised to find, while watching detachedly, that my body physical knew where the ball was going before my opponent even hit it. My body would start to move to the position the ball was going to be before they hit it.

IMO, to be able to play at this level, my subconscious mind has no time for subjective analysis. It would need to take in 100s of different data points and react almost immediately to them. To react correctly, all the information has to be accurate and unbiased. Otherwise I would obviously be unable to return the ball as I did.

This is why I lean this direction in what I believe. Research is still ongoing. It is very hard to come up with ways to test scientifically the accuracy of subconscious response. However personally I've found that conscious response lacks the accuracy that subconscious response. While I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person to have experience this, I can only really know what I have experienced for myself.

 

[Augustus]

IMO, to be able to play at this level, my subconscious mind has no time for subjective analysis. It would need to take in 100s of different data points and react almost immediately to them. To react correctly, all the information has to be accurate and unbiased. Otherwise I would obviously be unable to return the ball as I did.

This is why I lean this direction in what I believe. Research is still ongoing. It is very hard to come up with ways to test scientifically the accuracy of subconscious response. However personally I've found that conscious response lacks the accuracy that subconscious response. While I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person to have experience this, I can only really know what I have experienced for myself.

Perhaps it is simply a case of particularly effective subjective analysis:

“The dirty little secret about sensory systems is that they’re slow, they’re lagged, they’re not about what’s happening right now but what’s happening 50 milliseconds ago, or, in the case for vision, hundreds of milliseconds ago,” says Adam Hantman, a neuroscientist at Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Research Campus.

If we relied solely on this outdated information, though, we wouldn’t be able to hit baseballs with bats, or swat annoying flies away from our faces. We’d be less coordinated, and possibly get hurt more often.

So the brain predicts the path of motion before it happens. It tells us a story about where the object is heading, and this story becomes our reality.


It is based on repetition and experience leading to a subjective expectation based on numerous factors that operate at the subconscious level.

 

[wellwisher]

Objectivity is typically a group or consensus analysis/conclusion, while subjectivity is often a more personal analysis/conclusion. If we all agree of something, that is called being objective. If we, as a group, have different interpretations of the data that is called being subjective. However, subjectivity can also be a form of objectivity, at the personal level.

For example, say I eat a new type of food. My reaction to the food can be very sincere; objective to me, even if not like anyone else. I am being objective to my body and brain's reaction, to the new spice. However, since I am not running with the herd, my objective analysis will be called subjective by the herd.

On the other hand, at one time the consensus thought the earth was flat and anyone claiming that it was round was being subjective. In this case, the prestige of the leaders, gave their subjectivity, an extra subjective boost, so they could form a consensus and be called objective.

There is an entire range of internal; introspective data, that falls into the category of being both subjective and objective due to the philosophy of science setting the standard. For example, dreams are something most people have experienced. One can become objective to the data in the dreams and relate the dream to others. However, this data cannot be seen from the outside, using the third person tools of science. Since this violates the philosophy of science; need to be reproducible data, it will be called subjective, even though the individual assessment can be objective. It comes down to the group versus the individual.

Philosophy can address some of this individual objectivity, called subjectivity, but neuroscience is limited by the Philosophy of Science and cannot fully address this. Consciousness lies at the interface of sensory time delay and neural processing, such that the data it receives is an integration of the two. Neuroscience tries to separate the two, which is not what consciousness will see from the inside. Their approach is consistent with their philosophy but not to internal objectivity which lies outside that philosophy.

The philosophy of science was developed to factor out the internal data and subjective side of things. If a group of scientists went into the woods and someone hears a sound, but nobody else does, the sound will be factored out, since this was not reproducible by the team. However, it is still a form of internal data. This line in the sand was very useful for centuries. However, when exploring the brain and consciousness there is more than the sensory systems. There is no consensus; objective, science definition for consciousness since the needed internal data is left out by its own philosophy.