Objectivity

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:57 pm

This hit the news the other day: A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

The following is mainly a condensation of discussion here, just in case anyone wants to follow the evolution and see the nuances.

Subjectivity:

Subject ----> Object

Anything discerned about the object by the subject is subjective. What's real is only in terms of what can be discerned, so reality is just as much dependent upon the subject as the object.

Objectivity:

(((Object)))

There is no subject. It just is. Reality exists independent of observation and the subject plays no part in defining what's real.

It's that simple.

Remember James saying that which has no affect does not exist? That's subjectivity. An objectivist would posit that something exists regardless if it has affect (ie no subject required); it just is.

The dictionary definition of objective:

: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

adjective
-being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.
-intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
-being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
-of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

In objectivity, the object exists independent of an observer. And the incidental existence of any observer is inconsequential to reality.

Objectivity posits that the sun could be the only thing in existence since subjects aren't required for it to manifest, but light can't exist until its destination has been found, and heat is just IR light, so it's clear as day that the sun wouldn't be a sun at all without other things in the universe. We could say the planets "summon the light" from the sun. Our eyes solicit light from the world like one pole of a battery pulls current from the other.

The nucleus of an atom couldn't be a nucleus without the existence of the electron, so the electron calls into existence the nucleus as a nucleus in order to make an atom.

Don't confuse popular subjectivity with objectivity:

"The Earth is an oblate spheroid." Why should I consider that to be a subjective claim?

Because the appearance of the earth is discerned by a subject in relation to the earth as an object. It's a subjective claim that's popular (except with the flat-earthers).

But, for instance, "murder is absolutely wrong" can't be viewed, so it's not subject to the subject. It just is.

And if you find some line of logic to substantiate the "murder is wrong" claim, then it instantly becomes subject to logical reasoning.

IOW, if you say murder is wrong because of this line of thought ________, then someone could say, "Well, that doesn't apply to me because _____, ____, and _____, so murder is ok for me."

But if you say murder is absolutely wrong, period. Then there's nothing anyone can do about it. It doesn't depend on how anyone looks at it. It just is. It's not subject to anything.

Reality can't exist independent of observation or else we could have positive with no negative. Positive is only positive because the negative is negative. Without the negative, the positive cannot exist. Reality can only happen in a duality.

If the sun were the only thing in the universe, in what way could it be said to exist? It would give off no light, no heat, it would have no gravity, nor have any properties whatsoever because there is nothing interacting with it. Things are said to exist in terms of their interactions with other things and that idea was principle to James' theory of things being nonexistent because they have no affect on anything.

James said "I would recommend that "existence" is well defined as "that which has affect". That which has no affect whatsoever does not exist. And "to affect" means to cause or be responsible for change." viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193641&p=2687573&hilit=no+affect+affect+exist#p2687573

The Monty Hall Problem:

Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

You can pound your reasoning into someone's head all you want, but if it doesn't click, it doesn't click. It takes a subject with clicking capability to perceive the reasoning as reasonable.

So, like I was saying, as soon as you attach reasoning to any claim in order to support it, the truth of that claim immediately becomes subject to that reasoning (including this post - if you can't see what I mean, then it doesn't exist to you).

What is observation?

Observation is the affectance James was on about.

It's a popular misconception in QM that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function since the only thing required is observation (interaction); not conscious observation.

With the exception of gravity, our whole universe appears to be nothing but charge: the light our eyes perceive are just charge oscillation, the heat that we feel are results of charge oscillations, the smells are charge-dependent chemical reactions, sound is pressure waves resulting from charge-dependent van der waals forces, and ditto for touch. So the connectivity between everything that exists mainly relies on the existence charge separation to happen.

So the affectance that things have (the potential to cause effects) are in terms of charge and gravity at the fundamental level... and that appears to be the extent of it. So what is observation if it's not described by those two forces?

Like electricity seeking a path to ground, the light from the sun departs and arrives at our eyes, which causes charges to jiggle, which causes our brains, via chemical jostling, to become aware of the jiggling and interpret such as color or heat. The observation is the mechanical bit and the conscious realization of the perception of color isn't required to make it all go.

There is no such thing as unbiased reasoning. Everyone is biased.

There is no such thing as objective evaluation. All you can do is collect more opinions. And "fact" is consensus of opinion.

The object/subject juxtaposition deals with observation and not application. Even in subjectivity, the object is assumed to be applicable to all who have mechanism to perceive it. For example sound is perceptible to everyone with functioning ears; it's not like there are those with ears who cannot hear because the speaker was targeting only certain subjects, but the speaker delivers to all who have capability. So it's not a matter of who it applies to, but who has means to discern. The reality of the object is subject to the subject.

The quantity of people to which a claim applies is not the test for objectivity.

Even if everyone on earth agrees on a fact, it is still subjective. It's not objective, but popular subjectivity.

"Murder is wrong" is an objective claim not because it applies to everyone, but because there is no path to see it: no deductive argument supporting it and we cannot see it lying around to verify it empirically. It's just pulled from someone's imagination, asserted to be true, and what anyone thinks about it is irrelevant. It's not subject to anything, but just is (by authority).

"The earth is a spheroid" is a subjective claim because it's subject to the definition of spheroid and subject to the judgment that the earth fits the definition. It's not asserted to be true regardless what anyone thinks about it.

I'm not asserting my position to be true regardless what anyone thinks about it, but supplying deductive reasoning as a lens so that everyone capable of logic can see it.

"Murder is wrong" is just sitting there in the middle of nothingness, having no affect on anything, having no path to interact with it, to see it. It doesn't exist. And if you assert it to exist, then you're making an observerless observation.

On the other hand, if "murder is wrong" because it's bad for society (or whatever) then it's subject to the definition of "bad" and subject to the judgment that murder fits the definition.

Objectivity and subjectivity are not dealing with the quantities of people that things apply to, but are concerned about how things are discerned (observed). They are statements about observation (interaction) and not application.

Words get muddled in their meaning through time. Another example is agnosticism, which is a statement about knowledge whereas atheism is a statement about belief, but the original meaning of agnosticism has been muddled. It's similar with objectivity. It's convenient to use the word in an alternate sense, but then confusion arises when two meanings are conflated.

An objectivist is essentially someone who posits things to exist without deductive or empirical evidence (ie god, morality, gender stereotypes like: men should work and women cook n clean, etc). If the objectivist tries to back his claims with rationale, then he's no longer an objectivist since he's subjugated his position to rational interpretation.

What's true for all of us is coincidentally true for all of us; not that things that are true for all of us has more meaning or importance than things that are only true for some of us. The fact that something is true for all of us means nothing.

The speaker gives sound to anyone who can hear it. The speaker does not decide to give sound to only some people while not others. If people can hear the sound, then they hear the sound. All things are issued to all, but not all can perceive. So whether something is true for all of us is just pure coincidence and means nothing. Popular subjectivity doesn't make it less subjective.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:26 am

First there are no absolutes and absolutely absolutes.
As such there cannot be any absolute objectivity.

Objectivity is basically an inter-subjective emergence, i.e.

Subjects (objectivity)

Note objectivity is not an effect of inter-subjectivity but rather an emergence which is more complex than a cause/effect event.

The above modern physics argument merely confirm objectivity = intersubjectivity which is an issue that has been brought up by philosophers since thousands of years ago, from the Indians, Buddhists, [500 BCE and prior] Greeks, Kant and others.

Note this Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism issue which has been going on for thousands of years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Within the principle,
objectivity = intersubjectivity, i.e.
subjects (objects and objectivity)

the usual counter is,
but object pre-exist before subject.

So it is a "chicken or egg" issue.

For those who bang on the pre-existence of objects first then subject,
the problem is this will lead to infinite regression.
Therefore the object first principle is not tenable philosophically.
It only works for theists psychologically [emotionally] to jump to a conclusion of a First Cause or Unmoved Mover, i.e. an illusory God to deal with an existential crisis.

However if we focus on the subject as primary, the existence of the subject is so empirical evident. Thus we have a solid grounding if we start with subjects leading to objectivity as intersubjectivity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:28 pm

Thanks Prism! That's good stuff!

The chicken came from evolution. The egg came from chickens. So chickens came first. :animals-chicken:
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:42 pm

Sure, you can go on and on in great technical detail expounding upon objectivity.

But my "thing" here is more in the way of taking assessments of this sort out into the world of actual human interactions. You make your points above. And then the one you are making them do says, "okay, but what does that have to do with the life that I am living from day to day?"

I merely make my own distinction here between how close we come to objectivity in the either/or world and how much further removed it seems to be when value judgments come into conflict.

Or when the questions revolve around the nature of reality/existence itself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30239
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivity

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:21 pm

You're framing objectivity incorrectly.

If a truth is objective, it is true no matter what anyone thinks.

For example: in order for trees to exist, existence must exist.

That's all objectivity is: it's true regardless of what anyone thinks!

Like mathematical proof, we have ways of discovering objective proofs, and that they are in fact, objective.

Meaning: your opinion doesn't matter
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:54 am

Serendipper wrote:Thanks Prism! That's good stuff!

The chicken came from evolution. The egg came from chickens. So chickens came first. :animals-chicken:

The chicken evolved from dinosaurs which laid eggs, thus it is still a 'dinosaur or egg' problem prior to down the line there were probably other living things that laid eggs until the first egg[as defined] emerged. Then the focus is on the transition which has no certainty and absoluteness.
Thus the 'chicken or egg' question is not about the facts but rather to highlight the problem of transition, emergence and uncertainty which need to be explained in context.

It is the same issue with 'problem of the heap' i.e. when does a dripping of sand become a heap?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

The sorites paradox (/soʊˈraɪtiːz/;[1] sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that arises from vague predicates.[2] A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:02 am

Objective is that which is beyond subjective interpretation
Therefore anything that is interpreted by human beings cannot be objective by definition
So when human beings use the word objective they are referring to something subjective

Example : there are twenty four hours in a day

Now this might seem like an objective statement because it is not open to interpretation

But the language is human language and all language is subjective by definition
Also the concepts of hour and day are human measurements so also subjective
Also not all days are twenty four hours : some planets have shorter days / some have longer ones

So : there are twenty four hours in a day
is a very subjective statement indeed as all language / measurement / interpretation is subjective by definition

When human beings talk about objectivity they usually mean this :
something which is rigorous enough for it not to be regarded as subjective [ even though it is ]

True objectivity exists outside of language / measurement / interpretation because once
something is analysed in any way at all then that analysis by default becomes subjective

Sense perception and abstract thinking are fundamentally subjective because no two human beings think the same
Even when human beings agree on language / measurement / interpretation that is inter subjective NOT objective

Therefore for something to be truly objective [ in the purest sense ] it must be beyond ALL imagination and knowledge
For once something is known or imagined that is the point at which it becomes subjective and so is no longer objective
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:49 am

iambiguous wrote:And then the one you are making them do says, "okay, but what does that have to do with the life that I am living from day to day?"

There is no objective right and wrong or ought and should.

Or when the questions revolve around the nature of reality/existence itself.

Existence is relationship. Reality is the relationship between subject and object.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:58 am

Ecmandu wrote:You're framing objectivity incorrectly.

If a truth is objective, it is true no matter what anyone thinks.

Truth is subject to the conditions, context, framework and interpretation.

"The earth is a spheroid" depends on your definition of spheroid and your definition of what constitutes the earth: are you counting the atmosphere or just the surface and how far above sealevel, etc.

For example: in order for trees to exist, existence must exist.

Existence isn't a thing that can exist, but a relationship between a thing and its context. Existence has no context in which to exist.

That's all objectivity is: it's true regardless of what anyone thinks!

Yes pretty much. The earth is spheroid regardless of anyone's definitions or context; it's defined to be and asserted by authority.

Like mathematical proof, we have ways of discovering objective proofs, and that they are in fact, objective.

Proofs are subject to the logic. Change the logic and the proof fails.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:10 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Thanks Prism! That's good stuff!

The chicken came from evolution. The egg came from chickens. So chickens came first. :animals-chicken:

The chicken evolved from dinosaurs which laid eggs, thus it is still a 'dinosaur or egg' problem prior to down the line there were probably other living things that laid eggs until the first egg[as defined] emerged. Then the focus is on the transition which has no certainty and absoluteness.
Thus the 'chicken or egg' question is not about the facts but rather to highlight the problem of transition, emergence and uncertainty which need to be explained in context.

Yes, it looks like you have it! The egg-producing animal came from an animal that didn't produce eggs, so the animal came first and then it laid the first egg. It's hard to imagine how that could happen, but then again, what constitutes an egg? Maybe eggs have undergone a bit of evolution as well. Are we talking the hard-shell egg capable of surviving outside the water or fish eggs laid in the water? Probably some soft-shell egg had a random mutation that permitted it to survive somewhat outside the water, maybe the pond dried up except for mud, and because it survived, it also made eggs slightly tougher than the previous generation. This process went on until one day there was no longer a need for water and the eggs could survive on dry land. So which one of those animals is considered the chicken? And that's your 'heap' problem:

It is the same issue with 'problem of the heap' i.e. when does a dripping of sand become a heap?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

The sorites paradox (/soʊˈraɪtiːz/;[1] sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that arises from vague predicates.[2] A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?

Yes, just like asking when the day came when we became old. Alan Watts went deeper with it and asked when a person began. When a person is dead is another tough question.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:26 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Objective is that which is beyond subjective interpretation
Therefore anything that is interpreted by human beings cannot be objective by definition
So when human beings use the word objective they are referring to something subjective

Yes I think you're understanding it very well.

When human beings talk about objectivity they usually mean this :
something which is rigorous enough for it not to be regarded as subjective [ even though it is ]

I think usually they mean "popular subjectivity". Fact is consensus of opinion, which is popular subjectivity, and not true objectivity.

Like, everyone believes the earth is round. That's a unanimous collection of subjective interpretations. The fact that it's unanimous means nothing; it's still subjective.

Sense perception and abstract thinking are fundamentally subjective because no two human beings think the same

Check this out. It's really cool illustration of how people think differently. If you want to save time, start at 1:45.



Therefore for something to be truly objective [ in the purest sense ] it must be beyond ALL imagination and knowledge

Infinite simultaneous viewpoints, I would think, are required to view something objectively. Omnipresence is required. The subject would have to be all possible subjects at once.

For once something is known or imagined that is the point at which it becomes subjective and so is no longer objective

Yup
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:42 am

Serendipper wrote:
Alan Watts went deeper with it and asked when a person began

You could not exist without your parents
No one could exist without their parents

No life at all could exist without the formation of the Earth
Earth could not exist without the formation of the elements
The elements could not exist without the formation of atoms
Atoms could not exist without the Big Bang and expansion of spacetime

So you effectively could not exist without the formation of the Universe

Everything is therefore directly or indirectly connected to everything else as nothing can exist in total isolation
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:06 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
So you effectively could not exist without the formation of the Universe

Everything is therefore directly or indirectly connected to everything else as nothing can exist in total isolation

Thus also,

the universe-as-it-is cannot exist without 'you' and everyone else, i.e. the collective subject.

Point is the collective subject is the co-creator of reality-as-it-is.

According to Kant, there is no objective reality-by-itself [noumenon or thing-in-itself], there is only reality-by-ourselves, i.e. the collective subject.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:37 pm

Within the principle,
objectivity = intersubjectivity, i.e.
subjects (objects and objectivity)

the usual counter is,
but object pre-exist before subject.

So it is a "chicken or egg" issue.

For those who bang on the pre-existence of objects first then subject,
the problem is this will lead to infinite regression.
Therefore the object first principle is not tenable philosophically.
It only works for theists psychologically [emotionally] to jump to a conclusion of a First Cause or Unmoved Mover, i.e. an illusory God to deal with an existential crisis.

However if we focus on the subject as primary, the existence of the subject is so empirical evident. Thus we have a solid grounding if we start with subjects leading to objectivity as intersubjectivity.
You're walking on the sidewalk. A brick becomes dislodged at the top of a building and falls towards you. You don't see it falling and nobody else is looking at it.

Does it kill you when it hits you? Does it injure you?

Why or why not?

How does subjectivity work in this case? How does inter-subjectivity work? How is "subjects leading to objectivity" applicable?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11110
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:44 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:You're framing objectivity incorrectly.

If a truth is objective, it is true no matter what anyone thinks.

Truth is subject to the conditions, context, framework and interpretation.

"The earth is a spheroid" depends on your definition of spheroid and your definition of what constitutes the earth: are you counting the atmosphere or just the surface and how far above sealevel, etc.

For example: in order for trees to exist, existence must exist.

Existence isn't a thing that can exist, but a relationship between a thing and its context. Existence has no context in which to exist.

That's all objectivity is: it's true regardless of what anyone thinks!

Yes pretty much. The earth is spheroid regardless of anyone's definitions or context; it's defined to be and asserted by authority.

Like mathematical proof, we have ways of discovering objective proofs, and that they are in fact, objective.

Proofs are subject to the logic. Change the logic and the proof fails.


Logic doesn't change, though there are branches and modalities of logic, the proof through contradiction never changes. The different modalities all stem from proof through contradiction.

You're also confusing two things: that exact signifiers of different linguistic tokens determine contradiction. In English, hello is the same as hola in Spanish, it's not very hard for humans to figure out that they're talking about the same thing, but for you it's a catastrophic contradiction. You're also negating categories. It's not a contradiction for me to say that to the closest mile, the earths land circumference is x, and the earths atmosphere circumference is y.

Also, you're nit picking on existents.

I could just as easily state that in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist.

I'll also add in anticipation of your next post, that there is the perceptual acuity phenomenon.

Meaning: the further away you get from an object it no longer looks like the object, or vanishes completely. The closer you get to an object, say, microscopically, it also no longer looks like the object.

In order to see an object, you must be in the perceptual acuity median.

I know for every die hard objectivist there's an ulterior motive, objectivity "catches them!" And they don't want accountability. To be an adult.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:16 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Alan Watts went deeper with it and asked when a person began

You could not exist without your parents
No one could exist without their parents

No life at all could exist without the formation of the Earth
Earth could not exist without the formation of the elements
The elements could not exist without the formation of atoms
Atoms could not exist without the Big Bang and expansion of spacetime

So you effectively could not exist without the formation of the Universe

Everything is therefore directly or indirectly connected to everything else as nothing can exist in total isolation




If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlicue way out on the edge of that explosion, way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago you were a Big Bang and now you're a complicated human being, and then we cut ourselves up like this, and don't feel that we are still the Big Bang, but you are! It depends how you define yourself. You are actually... if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning, you're not something that is a result of the big bang, on the end of the process, you are still the process! You are the Big Bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. See, when I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as: mister so-and-so, miss or mrs so-and-so, I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way; I know I'm that too, but we've learned to define ourselves as separate from it.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:22 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:According to Kant, there is no objective reality-by-itself [noumenon or thing-in-itself], there is only reality-by-ourselves, i.e. the collective subject.

Yes the noumenon is absurd like a dot with no page.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:00 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Logic doesn't change, though there are branches and modalities of logic, the proof through contradiction never changes. The different modalities all stem from proof through contradiction.

Well, logic stems from duality: true, not-true. So, we could say positive and negative. The negative is negative because the positive is positive. But what happens with trichromatic quarks? Now we have a logic based on 3 charges where red is not-green and not-blue. Can you imagine a battery with 3 terminals required to make it operate?

Or how about numerical bases? Does 11+11 = 22 or 6?

You're also confusing two things: that exact signifiers of different linguistic tokens determine contradiction. In English, hello is the same as hola in Spanish, it's not very hard for humans to figure out that they're talking about the same thing, but for you it's a catastrophic contradiction.

No it's more like smiling to a human is considered friendly, but to an ape it's considered aggression (showing teeth - weapons). It's the same "word", but construed differently... subject to the subject.

You're also negating categories. It's not a contradiction for me to say that to the closest mile, the earths land circumference is x, and the earths atmosphere circumference is y.

If the surface of the atmosphere were considered the surface of the earth, which is what the surface of jupiter is considered, then its shape would be different from the shape of the heavier rock ball underneath. And then there is the problem of defining the edge of the atmosphere. So the shape of the earth is subject to the definitions you create.

earthshape.jpg
earthshape.jpg (43.97 KiB) Viewed 7961 times


Also, you're nit picking on existents.

I could just as easily state that in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist.

I don't understand your objection.

I'll also add in anticipation of your next post, that there is the perceptual acuity phenomenon.
Meaning: the further away you get from an object it no longer looks like the object, or vanishes completely. The closer you get to an object, say, microscopically, it also no longer looks like the object.
In order to see an object, you must be in the perceptual acuity median.
I know for every die hard objectivist there's an ulterior motive, objectivity "catches them!" And they don't want accountability. To be an adult.

I don't understand the point you're making here either.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:28 pm

Ok, but look what you're doing!!

You're making more categories to argue against the objective truth of categories..


Also, I think if I remember correctly, space has one atom for every square meter. So the line can be drawn there.

The point is: we have objective ways of determining and measuring. We use them constantly.

Now, I'll certainly be one to say that we haven't solved ALL things objectively, however, for a great many things, we have. For these great many things, it's very easy for us to state, "your opinion doesn't matter, it was already solved". For example: how we've solved the game of tic-tac-toe, or checkers... the best you can do is draw against a perfect player. It's solved. Over. Done. Known. It's no longer a matter of skill or opinion.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:37 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Ok, but look what you're doing!!

You're making more categories to argue against the objective truth of categories..

Well that just argues for what surreptitious said:

Therefore for something to be truly objective [ in the purest sense ] it must be beyond ALL imagination and knowledge
For once something is known or imagined that is the point at which it becomes subjective and so is no longer objective


Objectivity is absurd and absurdities cannot be imagined.

Also, I think if I remember correctly, space has one atom for every square meter. So the line can be drawn there.

What is space? Space cannot exist without something occupying it.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:42 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Ok, but look what you're doing!!

You're making more categories to argue against the objective truth of categories..

Well that just argues for what surreptitious said:

Therefore for something to be truly objective [ in the purest sense ] it must be beyond ALL imagination and knowledge
For once something is known or imagined that is the point at which it becomes subjective and so is no longer objective


Objectivity is absurd and absurdities cannot be imagined.

Also, I think if I remember correctly, space has one atom for every square meter. So the line can be drawn there.

What is space? Space cannot exist without something occupying it.


No, objectivity is not beyond imagination and knowledge, it is what's true regardless of anyone's opinion of the matter.

When I state, in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist. That is not beyond imagination or knowledge, it also doesn't afford opinion, it's an objective fact.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:05 pm

Ecmandu wrote:No, objectivity is not beyond imagination and knowledge, it is what's true regardless of anyone's opinion of the matter.

When I state, in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist. That is not beyond imagination or knowledge, it also doesn't afford opinion, it's an objective fact.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

It's your opinion that a tree exists. What is a tree but an arbitrary dissection of what there is? I can hand you a tree and when I do, it will contain dirt in a pot, so are dirt and pots part of trees? How about the atmosphere around the tree? Is that part of the tree too? The tree surely couldn't exist without those things, so they must be part of it. And to have those things requires a planet, so the planet is part of the tree too. As is the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe; all of it is the tree. But it's YOUR opinion that the tree is merely the woody bits and leaves. I disagree.

What constitutes a tree and whether or not it exists is subject to opinion.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Mad Man P » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:08 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:When I state, in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist. That is not beyond imagination or knowledge, it also doesn't afford opinion, it's an objective fact.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

What constitutes a tree and whether or not it exists is subject to opinion.


Logic governs our language, so that we remain intelligible to each other. Ecmandu's statement is true by definition, and Serendipper is pointing out that our definitions are subjective.

The only objectively "true" thing about logic is that we would become unintelligible without it.

There is an objective reality, but we are the ones who break it down into categories so as to apprehend it. That process isn't entirely subjective however, as it is utility driven.
The moment you have an objective, a goal, the most efficient path to that goal is no longer subject to opinion.

Evolution has made us value predictive power, the ability to assesses action-consequence so as to maneuver the terrain more effectively, but we can adopt new goals ad-hoc, like winning a debate, in which case we can categorize the world in absurde ways and claim it to be just as valid as any other.

But when you have to dig you make a distinction between a tree and the dirt as they would not behave the same when struck by a shovel.
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Objectivity

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:39 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:No, objectivity is not beyond imagination and knowledge, it is what's true regardless of anyone's opinion of the matter.

When I state, in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist. That is not beyond imagination or knowledge, it also doesn't afford opinion, it's an objective fact.
Your opinion doesn't matter here.

It's your opinion that a tree exists. What is a tree but an arbitrary dissection of what there is? I can hand you a tree and when I do, it will contain dirt in a pot, so are dirt and pots part of trees? How about the atmosphere around the tree? Is that part of the tree too? The tree surely couldn't exist without those things, so they must be part of it. And to have those things requires a planet, so the planet is part of the tree too. As is the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe; all of it is the tree. But it's YOUR opinion that the tree is merely the woody bits and leaves. I disagree.

What constitutes a tree and whether or not it exists is subject to opinion.


You expect me to believe that you're typing this post even though everything is 100% interdependent, at 100%, that makes everything exactly the same, which solves as nothing at all.

I've stated many times that the universe has to be fragmented to allow discernment of other.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8172
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby promethean75 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:06 pm

there has to be some degree of objective reality - meaning existing independently of experience - or else you get fucked up by this little dilemma:

two berkeleyeans meet in a bar. one of them drops dead. how does the other berkeleyean and the bar he's in continue to exist if each of them is/was just an 'idea' of the other, now dead berkeleyean?
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]