Objective Vs Subjective - How we can be more honest with ourselves, and then others

[PLB]

One result of absorbing all the functions of the "objective" register into the realm of the subjective is that it qualifies the character of knowlege in an overly objective manner.

 

Kant demonstrated this quality when he argued that the way things are in themselves was outside of the reach of human understanding. The "transcedental illusion" he would bring to an end is accompanied by a very specific description of how we can discover nature and universal qualities. The humility expressed in regards to approaching the reality of the real is nowhere to be seen when he claims to understand how we understand. His Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics could just as well have been titled: The Only Stuff that can be Learned through Perception and Experience.

 

By the measure of Zhuangzi, such a confidently expressed psychology is awfully presumptious.

 

 

[Marblehead]

Not sure what you mean. The concepts both exist, but, as Rara said in the OP, "everyone seems to have an opinion about something". The point being that what people believe is objective is really often subjective, or somewhere on a scale of subjectivity.

Objective reality is a given. It existed before man began walking the earth. Our planet has had a moon for about 4 billion years. Then man came along and started defining what the moon is. These are mostly subjective opinions. Later we gained enough knowledge to properly define it is objective terms.

 

I agree with you that all too often we, humans, classify the objective in ways that make us feel good. They are lies but that doesn't matter.

 

All physical experiences, unless premeditated, are objective experiences until we start thinking about the experience. This is when they become subjective.

 

We view the moon in the sky and say, "Look, there's the moon." The other person says, "Yep". Totally objective. But then another person comes along and says, "The moon is bright tonight." Subjective.

[Marblehead]

One result of absorbing all the functions of the "objective" register into the realm of the subjective is that it qualifies the character of knowlege in an overly objective manner.

I wish I understood what you said here because I think you might have said something important.

 

Would you try that again for me?

[iain]

Objective reality is a given. It existed before man began walking the earth. Our planet has had a moon for about 4 billion years. Then man came along and started defining what the moon is. These are mostly subjective opinions. Later we gained enough knowledge to properly define it is objective terms.

 

I agree with you that all too often we, humans, classify the objective in ways that make us feel good. They are lies but that doesn't matter.

 

All physical experiences, unless premeditated, are objective experiences until we start thinking about the experience. This is when they become subjective.

 

We view the moon in the sky and say, "Look, there's the moon." The other person says, "Yep". Totally objective. But then another person comes along and says, "The moon is bright tonight." Subjective.

Hello Marbles,

 

How is it objective if nobody is there to observe it?

If I might ask a simple question here, to highlight why or how subjectivity can be and, I believe is, universal:

 

Why does the moon have the same distance to diameter ratio as the Sun from Earth, if the "Newtonian" odds are close to infinitely stacked against this happening?

Is this more likely the result of:

 

a). An exterior force, that of mass relativity and gravity; an objective force.

 

or

 

. An interior force from the energy from the void or within; that we might chose to call subjective energy.

 

love the shades; they were not intentional ...

Edited November 4, 2014 by iain

[Marblehead]

Hello Marbles,

 

How is it objective if nobody is there to observe it?

 

My, My, you put so much importance on the human animal. Hehehe

[iain]

My, My, you put so much importance on the human animal. Hehehe

On conciousness not on humans, you misread the above; did you read the rest?

 

Actually I must thank you, as I have just realised quite an interesting hypothesis whilst writing that ...

[dust]

Objective reality is a given. It existed before man began walking the earth. Our planet has had a moon for about 4 billion years. Then man came along and started defining what the moon is. These are mostly subjective opinions. Later we gained enough knowledge to properly define it is objective terms.

 

Oh, yes, I'm not suggesting that there is no underlying objective stuff. I guess I am suggesting that we never experience the whole of it -- that our experience is incomplete.

 

And if our perceptions are incomplete / subjective, our language is subjective, and our use of and understanding of numbers and language is subject to subjectivity.... almost all of what we think and say and do is subjective.

 

 

We view the moon in the sky and say, "Look, there's the moon." The other person says, "Yep". Totally objective. But then another person comes along and says, "The moon is bright tonight." Subjective.

 

We see the moon, but not (necessarily) in the same way.

 

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=30670#.VFi0PslaaZQ

 

Part of a fascinating documentary, well worth a watch.

[Marblehead]

Hello Marbles,

 

How is it objective if nobody is there to observe it?

If I might ask a simple question here, to highlight why or how subjectivity can be and, I believe is, universal:

Give it your best shot.

 

Why does the moon have the same distance to diameter ratio as the Sun from Earth, if the "Newtonian" odds are close to infinitely stacked against this happening?

But the moon used to be much closer to the earth than it is now. Its distance from the earth is gradually increasing and it won't be long when it will be far enough away so that we will never again see a full solar eclipse.

 

Is this more likely the result of:

 

a). An exterior force, that of mass relativity and gravity; an objective force.

 

or

 

. An interior force from the energy from the void or within; that we might chose to call subjective energy.

Oh, it goes much deeper than that. Our moon is likely a result of a collision of early earth and another mini-planet. The result of the collision sent parts of earth and the mini-planet into space where they were drawn together by gravity and created the moon. (That's the best guess right now.)

 

love the shades; they were not intentional ...

If you are gazing at the sun you should wear shades.

 

Incidentally, I could also have asked why are the spiral arms of the galaxy not flying out in to space, same question to my mind. The answer being; the Higgs Boson.

It is my opinion that the Higgs Boson has been given more significance than it deserves.

 

The arms are held in place by Dark Matter. (Best guess right now.)

[Marblehead]

On conciousness not on humans, you misread the above; did you read the rest?

 

Actually I must thank you, as I have just realised quite an interesting hypothesis whilst writing that ...

But I cannot read it the way you want me to because I do not hold to the concept of any consciousness beyond what is experienced in a conscious brain or nervous system (this includes plants to a certain degree).

 

Well, that's why we speak with each other. To test our own understandings.

[Marblehead]

Oh, yes, I'm not suggesting that there is no underlying objective stuff. I guess I am suggesting that we never experience the whole of it -- that our experience is incomplete.

Now we are making progress!!!!!

 

And if our perceptions are incomplete / subjective, our language is subjective, and our use of and understanding of numbers and language is subject to subjectivity.... almost all of what we think and say and do is subjective.

Absolutely!!! A number of times in various threads I have suggested to someone that they are thinking too much. We think and add illusion and delusion to the objective. Stop thinking so much. Live and enjoy the objective experiences. Or at least learn from those that don't feel good.

 

We see the moon, but not (necessarily) in the same way.

 

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=30670#.VFi0PslaaZQ

 

Part of a fascinating documentary, well worth a watch.

I don't question that. In fact, I suggest it is very true. But regardless of how we see it, it is still the same moon. The moon doesn't change to fit our subjectivity. Never has and never will.

[iain]

 

Give it your best shot.

But the moon used to be much closer to the earth than it is now. Its distance from the earth is gradually increasing and it won't be long when it will be far enough away so that we will never again see a full solar eclipse.

Oh, it goes much deeper than that. Our moon is likely a result of a collision of early earth and another mini-planet. The result of the collision sent parts of earth and the mini-planet into space where they were drawn together by gravity and created the moon. (That's the best guess right now.)

Says who; are they not familiar with the latest results from CERN?

 

 

If you are gazing at the sun you should wear shades.

It is my opinion that the Higgs Boson has been given more significance than it deserves.

The arms are held in place by Dark Matter. (Best guess right now.)

I study the sky at night it is far less illusory, and the angle between the Sun and the Moon; Observation of the Sun is for those who worship the Gregorian calendar.

You might consider re-reading the maths and hypothesis, the Higgs Boson is that which implied the existence of Dark Matter.

You have avoided answering my simple question ...

Edited November 4, 2014 by iain

[iain]

Oh, yes, I'm not suggesting that there is no underlying objective stuff. I guess I am suggesting that we never experience the whole of it -- that our experience is incomplete.

 

And if our perceptions are incomplete / subjective, our language is subjective, and our use of and understanding of numbers and language is subject to subjectivity.... almost all of what we think and say and do is subjective.

 

 

 

We see the moon, but not (necessarily) in the same way.

 

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=30670#.VFi0PslaaZQ

 

Part of a fascinating documentary, well worth a watch.

Great documentary; thank you for posting.

[Marblehead]

 

 

Says who; are they not familiar with the latest results from CERN?

 

 

 

I study the sky at night it is far less illusory, and the angle between the Sun and the Moon; Observation of the Sun is for those who worship the Gregorian calendar.

 

You might consider re-reading the maths and hypothesis, the Higgs Boson is that which implied the existence of Dark Matter.

 

You have avoided answering my simple question ...

Are there really any results from the work at CERN? I think that all they have done is collect data and submitted hypotheses. There is still a lot of work to do in order to test the hypotheses.

 

Yes, glaring at the sun will cause blindness of the eyes. Believing in illusions and delusions will cause blindness of the mind.

 

From Wikipedia: ... dark matter was postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters.

 

Higgs had nothing to do with it.

 

 

I seem to have forgotten your simple question. Would you please present it again?

[iain]

Are there really any results from the work at CERN? I think that all they have done is collect data and submitted hypotheses. There is still a lot of work to do in order to test the hypotheses.

 

That is all science can ever do.

 

 

Yes, glaring at the sun will cause blindness of the eyes. Believing in illusions and delusions will cause blindness of the mind.

 

 

Quite, objectivity is highly illusory with out knowledge of subjectivity, the sky is not solid blue object, it is glare from the sun.

 

 

 

From Wikipedia: ... dark matter was postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters.

 

Higgs had nothing to do with it.

 

 

Ok, I stand corrected, so Higgs postulated a subjective glue to make that standard model fit that which was observed.

 

 

I seem to have forgotten your simple question. Would you please present it again?

 

Post #108

 

The second question; I will propose a 3rd response:

 

c). That this is insignificant and has had no effect at all upon events on planet earth.

 

Else, please do feel free to explain this phenomenon how you see fit.

Edited November 4, 2014 by iain

[Marblehead]

That is all science can ever do.

Well, science has proven some things.

 

Quite, objectivity is highly illusory with out knowledge of subjectivity, the sky is not solid blue object, it is glare from the sun.

I quick look makes it seem you are talking in circles but I do understand what you said.

 

Isn't it our atmosphere that causes it to appear blue?

 

Ok, I stand corrected, so Higgs postulated a subjective glue to make that standard model fit that which was observed.

So now we have glue holding the galaxies together? WoW!

 

Why doesn't that glue work on the entire universe? The universe (space) is, afterall, expanding at a speed faster than the speed of light.

 

Post #108

 

 

I will go look at that now.

[iain]

The glue was hypothetically holding the scientific axioms together; CERN has found that Glue its called the higgs boson, observed whilst colliding Hadrons.

In vedanga jyotish we call it Akash tattva and have done for a very long time.

Edited November 4, 2014 by iain

[iain]

But I cannot read it the way you want me to because I do not hold to the concept of any consciousness beyond what is experienced in a conscious brain or nervous system (this includes plants to a certain degree).

 

Well, that's why we speak with each other. To test our own understandings.

 

“Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.” ... Bruce Lee, Enter the Dragon.

[Marblehead]

It seems there are two questions here. I will speak to both.

Hello Marbles,

How is it objective if nobody is there to observe it?
If I might ask a simple question here, to highlight why or how subjectivity can be and, I believe is, universal:

Are you suggesting the universe did not exist until there was someone to observe it?

 

The entire universe was objective (and still is) before there were any plants or animals on this planet. The universe did not need humans to place their value judgements on it in order for it to exist.

 

The house I am living in here in Florida didn't need me in order for it to exist. I was living in Augusta, Georgia when it was built and had no knowledge of it being built.

 

Why does the moon have the same distance to diameter ratio as the Sun from Earth, if the "Newtonian" odds are close to infinitely stacked against this happening?

I did answer the question in a 'round about way but you apparently missed it.

[Marblehead]

Post #108

The second question; I will propose a 3rd response:

c). That this is insignificant and has had no effect at all upon events on planet earth.

Else, please do feel free to explain this phenomenon how you see fit.

Okay.

 

Distance of Earth from Sun: 149,597,870,700 meters

Average distance of Moon from Earth: 384,403,000 meters

Current ratio: 389.169,363,~ to 1

 

The distance between Earth and the Moon is increasing by 3.8 centimeters per year.

 

The distance between the Earth and the Moon is significant because the Moon moderates Earth's orbital wobble thereby allowing for the seasons to be what they are. Without the Moon Earth's wobble would be much greater and it is likely that the wobble would be too great for life to have formed on Earth.

 

The Moon also controls the oceans' tides and although I have forgotten what that means it is important.

[Seth Ananda]

Everyone is so sure of Objectivity. You mean it 'Must' exist right, because everyone believes in it?

 

Or how could a so commonly held concept be wrong?

 

Yet, when you ask people to actually demonstrate objectivity, to show someone something that is actually truly objective, no one can come up with anything but diddley squat.

 

The underlying themes seems to be:

"well it does/must exist because I like the concept"

"even though I can not demonstrate it even too the slightest degree, I will continue to talk as if it is real because I am comfortable with it"

 

 

I dont think that anyone should even mention it once more in this thread, unless they are demonstrating conclusively that it is real.

 

 

 

If you cannot demonstrate its existence in any way, why include it topics as if it is a real thing?

 

Its actually a worse concept than 'God', in that people have experience of 'something' that they refer to as God. Whether it is God or not, or how accurate their interpretation of their experiences is is another conversation, but at least there is 'something' that they are basing their conversation on... Not so with objectivity.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Seth Ananda

[Marblehead]

Everyone is so sure of Objectivity. You mean it 'Must' exist right, because everyone believes in it?

 

Or how could a so commonly held concept be wrong?

Do you exist? If you do then every other thing that exists has that same quality. If you don't exist then I am talking with someone who subjectively seems to be you.

 

Yet, when you ask people to actually demonstrate objectivity, to show someone something that is actually truly objective, no one can come up with anything but diddley squat.

I have offered you examples repeatedly but you subjectively do not accept them. You have even admitted to walking (or falling from) a tree. The tree existed objectively for you to be able to walk into or fall out of it. And you existed in onder to do the same.

 

The underlying themes seems to be:

"well it does/must exist because I like the concept"

"even though I can not demonstrate it even too the slightest degree, I will continue to talk as if it is real because I am comfortable with it"

That is unfair and untrue. It is you who will not accept the views of those who are stating that there is an objective universe.

 

I dont think that anyone should even mention it once more in this thread, unless they are demonstrating conclusively that it is real.

You are real, I am real, your computer exists, my computer exists, and therefore we are able to have a discussion which also exists. All objective, mind you.

 

If you cannot demonstrate its existence in any way, why include it topics as if it is a real thing?

I have numerous times. You are perhaps not listening?

 

Its actually a worse concept than 'God', in that people have experience of 'something' that they refer to as God. Whether it is God or not, or how accurate their interpretation of their experiences is is another conversation, but at least there is 'something' that they are basing their conversation on... Not so with objectivity.

Okay, you just spoke to the objective (people and experience) thereby giving credence to the reality of the objective. You also spoke to the subjective.

 

I will agree with you regarding illusions and delusions though.

[dust]

In another post, there's discussion on whether or not something looks like a loaf of bread.

 

"But then you could be wrong about it looking like a loaf of bread."

 

"I could be wrong about it being a loaf of bread, but I didn't say that. I can't be "wrong" about what it subjectively looks like me."

 

If someone thinks something looks like a loaf of bread, then it does... to them. Even if it's a teapot. It was designed as a teapot, and has all the qualities of a teapot, so it would follow that it is, objectively, a teapot. But what's a teapot? Only something created by man's subjective mind.

 

Also, if anything can be said to look like anything from one's subjective perspective, and that nobody can disagree with how I perceive things (because how do you know?), how do we know who's seeing a thing as it "really is" and who's hallucinating?

 

Cervantes offers a view on this: through Don Quixote's madness -- because he wants the world to be different than it appears to be -- he just starts to see things completely differently to other people. An inn is a castle, a bowl is a helmet, an ugly smelly serving maid is a beautiful fragrant princess.

 

Don't we all do this? I see the moon, you see the moon -- but what's the moon? The fact that we give it a name indicates that we've subjectively separated it from the rest of existence. Someone sees it as a big block of cheese, someone as a ball of rock floating through space, someone as a concentration of matter among the less concentrated matrix of matter that makes up space...

[iain]

It seems there are two questions here. I will speak to both.

Are you suggesting the universe did not exist until there was someone to observe it?

No.

 

That it may exists so that some can observe it is another matter, but not my suggestion above.

 

The entire universe was objective (and still is) before there were any plants or animals on this planet. The universe did not need humans to place their value judgements on it in order for it to exist.

 

See remark on universal conciousness ...

 

 

The house I am living in here in Florida didn't need me in order for it to exist. I was living in Augusta, Georgia when it was built and had no knowledge of it being built.

 

With all due respect this is quite irrelevant to the current discussion, please reread my first response to the nature of conciousness, as existing before humans; Ego is the delusion of free will, it is a product of conciousness but it is not not conciousness; we have grown into a shoe that fits.

 

 

I did answer the question in a 'round about way but you apparently missed it.

 

Where?

Edited November 4, 2014 by iain

[Brian]

Well, science has proven some things.

<snip>

 

Ummm...

 

Such as...?

[Marblehead]

Gravity sucks.