YOU DO NOT SEE OBJECTIVE REALITY OBJECTIVELY

[atanu]

(This is nothing new.)

According to the linked Big Think article, objective reality exists but brain filters information in conformity to natural selection. The article says “Studies suggest that our brains warp sensory data as soon as we collect it.”

The problem, as I see it, is that the ‘Brain’ itself is such an object .. of consciousness.

You don't see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy

 

[sun rise]

What this means is that reality itself is transperspectival. It can’t be captured in any perspective. So multiple perspectives have to be taken. All of which will have some part of the reality, some signal.”

This is, of course, a restatement of the famous "Blind Men and the Elephant Story"

 

[Nakosis]

(This is nothing new.)

According to the linked Big Think article, objective reality exists but brain filters information in conformity to natural selection. The article says “Studies suggest that our brains warp sensory data as soon as we collect it.”

The problem, as I see it, is that the ‘Brain’ itself is such an object.

You don't see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy

IMO, yes and no. We receive objective sensory information. It is just that we are not consciously aware of it.
The brain is not just conscious awareness. In fact our "self" conscious awareness is a minor function of the brain.
Free will or faux free will seems beneficial to survival. Self consciousness allows free will.
Philosophy provides a top level view. neuroscience provides the mechanics/details.

 

[metis]

(This is nothing new.)

According to the linked Big Think article, objective reality exists but brain filters information in conformity to natural selection. The article says “Studies suggest that our brains warp sensory data as soon as we collect it.”

The problem, as I see it, is that the ‘Brain’ itself is such an object.

You don't see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy

When we look at an object, the only thing we see is the light that's reflected, thus not the object itself.

 

[Left Coast]

(This is nothing new.)

According to the linked Big Think article, objective reality exists but brain filters information in conformity to natural selection. The article says “Studies suggest that our brains warp sensory data as soon as we collect it.”

The problem, as I see it, is that the ‘Brain’ itself is such an object.

You don't see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy

This is the reason why in science, conclusions are reached probabilistically. We can never entirely rule out the possibility that our conclusions, no matter how well evidenced, may be wrong.

 

[Augustus]

We receive objective sensory information. It is just that we are not consciously aware of it.

Do we? We only receive partial information on that which our sense are attuned to. So a human, a bat and a snake in the same environment will perceive different things based on the same objective reality.

We each obtain different aspects of the total information available based on our evolved characteristics.

Can this really be described as objective?

 

[Polymath257]

(This is nothing new.)

According to the linked Big Think article, objective reality exists but brain filters information in conformity to natural selection. The article says “Studies suggest that our brains warp sensory data as soon as we collect it.”

The problem, as I see it, is that the ‘Brain’ itself is such an object.

You don't see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy

Even more so, your perceptions will be different if you are 'primed' in different ways. So, you are more likely to perceive something as smelling unpleasant if you are previously told to imagine something unpleasant. There are many well-known and document variants of this.

Natural selection means our perceptions are tuned to help *survival* in the environment in which they developed. That doesn't even mean survival in a technological society, but rather more in the grasslands of Africa.

But there is more: we *know* that we don't perceive ultraviolet light, for example, or ultrasound. There are many aspects of objective reality we simply cannot perceive (radio waves is another example). So there are whole aspects of objective reality that we simply cannot perceive.

Furthermore, we are subject to optical and other sensory illusions. We can perceive lines to be of different lengths that are the same length, colors to be different that are the same, and an endlessly rising pitch that never goes too high.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by our brains being 'such an object'.

 

[Wandering Monk]

This is why we create tools to measure things then ask other people to check our work.

 

[Nakosis]

Do we? We only receive partial information on that which our sense are attuned to. So a human, a bat and a snake in the same environment will perceive different things based on the same objective reality.

We each obtain different aspects of the total information available based on our evolved characteristics.

Can this really be described as objective?

The sensory information is objective. It only becomes subjective after being interpreted by the subconscious mind.

Well as objective as possible, just pure information.

An athlete in the "zone" operates with pure objective environmental information, this is why they can perform exceptional feats. During this the conscious self is just a by-stander.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is, of course, a restatement of the famous "Blind Men and the Elephant Story"

Without question.

I pity the blind man at the rear though if jumbo had lunch....

Just saying...

 

[atanu]

@Polymath257 ; @sun rise ; @Left Coast ; @Nakosis @Augustus ; @Wandering Monk ; @Twilight Hue;
@metis

The question remains: is the body the subject or is it an object of consciousness?

 

[Left Coast]

@Polymath257 ; @sun rise ; @Left Coast ; @Nakosis @Augustus ; @Wandering Monk ; @Twilight Hue;
@metis

The question remains: is the body the subject or is it an object of consciousness?

It's both. That's the definition of self-awareness.

 

[atanu]

It's both. That's the definition of self-awareness.

Okay. But what does the article say? Our view and understanding is inevitably warped. So, what is that view of ‘self’ in ‘self awareness’?

 

[Augustus]

The sensory information is objective. It only becomes subjective after being interpreted by the subconscious mind.

Well as objective as possible, just pure information.

There is information that objectively exists independently of us: radiation, light, etc. but we do not sense it objectively and we only pick up a small part of the total information.

Humans and dogs don't hear the same things. Snakes and humans don't see the same things. Different humans don't even see and hear the same things, although the differences within species are smaller than those between species.

An athlete in the "zone" operates with pure objective environmental information, this is why they can perform exceptional feats. During this the conscious self is just a by-stander.

An athlete can't sense anything objectively though. Our brain is constantly filling in gaps of information even with sight.

Being in the zone is just the result of training and expertise. It is a state based on subjective experience and training your senses and muscles to operate in a specific instinctive harmony.

Even without being in the zone, many things in elite sports happen too quickly for conscious actions.

 

[Nakosis]

There is information that objectively exists independently of us: radiation, light, etc. but we do not sense it objectively and we only pick up a small part of the total information.

Humans and dogs don't hear the same things. Snakes and humans don't see the same things. Different humans don't even see and hear the same things, although the differences within species are smaller than those between species.

This is kind of not relevant. What is relevant is whether the information that is physically detected through our senses is objective.

An athlete can't sense anything objectively though. Our brain is constantly filling in gaps of information even with sight.

Being in the zone is just the result of training and expertise. It is a state based on subjective experience and training your senses and muscles to operate in a specific instinctive harmony.

Even without being in the zone, many things in elite sports happen too quickly for conscious actions.

Only to your conscious awareness. Which senses do you believe are not obtaining information from objective reality? Your eyes do not see what they see? The environment detected by your skin is a lie. Your sense of taste has no relationship to what you put in your mouth? Some could be blind or deaf, that doesn't mean their others senses are not working.

 

[Augustus]

Only to your conscious awareness. Which senses do you believe are not obtaining information from objective reality? Your eyes do not see what they see? The environment detected by your skin is a lie. Your sense of taste has no relationship to what you put in your mouth? Some could be blind or deaf, that doesn't mean their others senses are not working.

The information may come from objective reality, but it is not perceived objectively with any of our senses.

For example, your sight is a useful and efficient approximation with many gaps filled in by your brain. This is easily demonstrated.

Objectively A and B are the same colour. It is impossible for you to see them that way though.

 

[Nakosis]

The information may come from objective reality, but it is not perceived objectively with any of our senses.

For example, your sight is a useful and efficient approximation with many gaps filled in by your brain. This is easily demonstrated.

Objectively A and B are the same colour. It is impossible for you to see them that way though.

Right, because conscious observation is not objective.
I'm talking about what occurs prior to conscious observation.

 

[Augustus]

Right, because conscious observation is not objective.
I'm talking about what occurs prior to conscious observation.

Subconscious observation is also subjective.

An athlete in the zone is no more perceiving things objectively than I am.

 

[Nakosis]

Subconscious observation is also subjective.

An athlete in the zone is no more perceiving things objectively than I am.

Do you have anything to support that statement?

 

[Kooky]

Do you have anything to support that statement?

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.

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.

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.