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

[iain]

 

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.

 

Ratio between distance and diameter, not between consecutive distances; Please let me demonstrate if maths and science are not your forte:

 

Distance to Sun from Earth: 150000000000m

Linear diameter of Sun: 1392000000m

 

150000000000 / 1392000000 = 107.8

 

Distance from Moon to Earth varies between: 363104000m & 405696000m

Linear diameter of the Moon: 3474000m

 

363104000 / 3474000 = 104.5

405696000 / 3474000 = 116.8

 

We do not know if the Moon is oscillating or moving away from us, the value given is over a very short sample time period.

 

The lunar month is the same length as the average length of a Woman's menstrual cycle.

(Curve ball added for effect and fun).

Edited November 4, 2014 by iain

[iain]

Ummm...

 

Such as...?

Silly Billy;

 

Indisputable proof of Occidental superiority ...

 

Or was that:

 

Indisputable proof of an Occidental superiority complex?

 

 

[Marblehead]

Okay. Your math is good.

 

And therefore the earth goes around the sun and the moon goes around earth.

 

Does the moon go around the sun?

We do not know if the Moon is oscillating or moving away from us.

Oh, but we do. On one of the missions to the moon a reflector was placed on the moon and they can actually measure the distance using a laser beam sent from earth, reflected off the moon and returned to earth. The time for the full cycle is used to determine the distance.

 

The lunar month is the same length as the average length of a Woman's menstrual cycle.

Well, if a woman misses her cycle something dramatic has happened. I suppose it would be dramatic too if the moon missed one of its cycles.

[Marblehead]

Silly Billy;

 

Indisputable proof of Occidental superiority ...

 

Or was that:

 

Indisputable proof of an Occidental superiority complex?

 

 

I have no freakin' idea.

[iain]

... And therefore the earth goes around the sun and the moon goes around earth.

 

Does the moon go around the sun?

Yes, but it is the angle between the Sun and Moon that is most interesting; this is the foundation of both the Indian and Chinese calendars.

Oh, but we do. On one of the missions to the moon a reflector was placed on the moon and they can actually measure the distance using a laser beam sent from earth, reflected off the moon and returned to earth. The time for the full cycle is used to determine the distance.

 

Well, if a woman misses her cycle something dramatic has happened. I suppose it would be dramatic too if the moon missed one of its cycles.

The sample time period used is so small that we really have no idea; the angular velocity (speed) of the Moon varies enormously also. I think due to the effect of the mass of the water on earth.

I am sure that the Higgs Boson can quite feasibly alter the calculations here; when it finally seeps into the general conciousness.

Edited November 4, 2014 by iain

[PLB]

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

 

Would you try that again for me?

Take the discussion above concerning systems of measurements as forms of shared experience. As a matter of scientific method the idea was advanced by Percy Williams Bridgman through his advocacy for what he called "operational concepts", which has been generally defined as: "The view that all theoretical terms in science must be defined only by their procedures or operations." As a scientist, Bridgman did not put forward this idea as a philosophy of meaning but as a restraint on the models built for the purpose of controlled experiments in physics. The linked article does a good job of showing how this idea was employed and/or opposed over the last hundred years.

 

As much of the discussion in this thread demonstrates, the idea has become deeply entangled in questions about meaning and what "models" are reflections of or not. For instance, Behaviorists took up Bridgman's banner to build a model of human life that did not assume immediate experience, intuition, and insight as integral components of the phenomena. They were subtracting the "subjective" in the way Seth Ananda is subtracting the "objective" as cognitive illusion up thread. The problem with both approaches is that they become models that now somehow include what has been excluded. In this way, their approaches share the problem Kant made for himself when he saved the pursuit of the laws of nature from the solipsism of Berkeley and the sceptism of Hume but lost his neighborhood of fellow beings. He had accidentally explained them away.

[Marblehead]

Yes, but it is the angle between the Sun and Moon that is most interesting; this is the foundation of both the Indian and Chinese calendars.

But it was the subjective after the objective reality, wasn't it?

 

The sample time period used is so small that we really have no idea; the angular velocity (speed) of the Moon varies enormously also. I think due to the effect of the mass of the water on earth.

Well, sure, neither the orbit of earth around the sun is perfect nor the orbit of the moon around the sun. But they can be measured. And many hold to the understanding that these are measurable at any given point in time.

 

It takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth but only 1.3 seconds for light from the moon to reach earth. No, I don't know how they did the sun's time as I don't believe anyone has gone there yet.

 

I am sure that the Higgs Boson can quite feasibly alter the calculations here; when it finally seeps into the general conciousness.

Maybe.

 

I never had a problem with the Higg's field theory when I first heard of it because it sounded so logical to my mind.

 

The Higg's Boson, on the other hand, has caused nothing but questions and doubts in my mind. (Especially when people started calling the Higgs Particle the God Particle. That made it all seem so unnatural to my mind.)

[thelerner]

Sorry to veer off target, but talk of the astronomical talk reminded me of this video:

 

 

Perhaps its an example of how we have static mental maps of things, when the reality is much more more dynamic.

[Marblehead]

Take the discussion above concerning systems of measurements as forms of shared experience. As a matter of scientific method the idea was advanced by Percy Williams Bridgman through his advocacy for what he called "operational concepts", which has been generally defined as: "The view that all theoretical terms in science must be defined only by their procedures or operations." As a scientist, Bridgman did not put forward this idea as a philosophy of meaning but as a restraint on the models built for the purpose of controlled experiments in physics. The linked article does a good job of showing how this idea was employed and/or opposed over the last hundred years.

 

As much of the discussion in this thread demonstrates, the idea has become deeply entangled in questions about meaning and what "models" are reflections of or not. For instance, Behaviorists took up Bridgman's banner to build a model of human life that did not assume immediate experience, intuition, and insight as integral components of the phenomena. They were subtracting the "subjective" in the way Seth Ananda is subtracting the "objective" as cognitive illusion up thread. The problem with both approaches is that they become models that now somehow include what has been excluded. In this way, their approaches share the problem Kant made for himself when he saved the pursuit of the laws of nature from the solipsism of Berkeley and the sceptism of Hume but lost his neighborhood of fellow beings. He had accidentally explained them away.

Thanks for your work with this. I have never read Kant so I can't (sorry) speak of him.

 

In this discussion I am trying to leave "subjective" alone because it is just as real for the thinker as is the "objective" for all people.

 

Reductionism never works because you always end up with zero.

 

And I do agree that the fewer variable one has in their model the more accurate the results will be if one considers only verifiable constants. But then, as we know, the universe is dynamic and there are rarely, if ever, constants so there exists the possibility that different results will be obtained with every test.

 

Like predicting the weather, there is only a very slightly probability that any prediction will be correct. A little better than 50/50.

 

The thing about the objective is determined by considering if all thinking beings were removed from the equation would other things still be the same. I suggest that the moon doesn't need man to observe its orbit around the earth in order for it to be doing so.

[Marblehead]

Sorry to veer off target, but talk of the astronomical talk reminded me of this video:

 

 

Perhaps its an example of how we have static mental maps of things, when the reality is much more more dynamic.

While the premise is valid it was so grossly exaggerated in that video so that the entire premise became invalid, IMO.

[Rara]

 

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

 

 

Many physicists will agree.

[Rara]

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.

 

Did you see the OP?

[PLB]

I suggest that the moon doesn't need man to observe its orbit around the earth in order for it to be doing so.

 

For the time being, I hope that the process of verification you propose remains a thought experiment.

[Marblehead]

For the time being, I hope that the process of verification you propose remains a thought experiment.

Yeah, I want to live to my full capacity. If the moon goes away we all likely will too.

 

And yes, Some of my thoughts are untestable.

[Seth Ananda]

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.

Of course I do, and of course you do. Dropping a false notion like objectivity does not turn you into a vegetable. You will simply continue to be what you have always been. An intersubjective person, yet who now no longer believes in objectivity.

 

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.

They are not examples and in no way qualify proof.

Saying "you can bump in to a tree so therefore ~ Objectivity!" does not in any way qualify as science, evidence, or even logic, if logic means following careful steps to something self evident.

 

That is unfair and untrue.

Not really. "I told him about tree's so lets just move on" is what has happened. If you want it to be fair, take the example of bumping into a tree, and break it down. See if we can find something actually objective within it?

 

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

Why would I just 'accept' those views? Apparently science is not a religion?

 

My stance remember is that there 'could be' an objective universe, but that no one will ever know anything about, or experience it. Weirdly it was the process of falsification that got me to my current perspective. When I first read this Idea, I was like "no...!" so I then started analysing everything i could about my experience to try and find something that could genuinely be called objective. I couldn't.

Senses are a measurement system.

We see based on the available rod and cones in our eyes and see a completely different world to other creatures with different eyes.

We hear the 'world' within our available hearing spectrum.

Ect...

Maths results are based on a human construct, based on our particular numerical systems....

Measurement systems are approximations based on time. If you say its 10 feet to the shore, well the shore edge is constantly moving, so Australia being 4100 km across from shore to shore is also an approximation.

Any other example that can be thought of can be found to be subjective or intersubjective.

 

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.

Real by what standards? Existing by what standards? Sight? Experience? Thermal Imaging?

 

I think there is a core fear around most people and this subject. Subjectivity has been rubbished and demonised for so long as being Objectivities poor shabby second cousin.

This means people are terrified that dropping the concept will result in a wooly thinking epidemic, which is why an understanding of Intersubjective is so important, to ease irrational fears that suddenly the laws of physics wont apply or 1+1 will now equal a Marshmallow! {or anything you want really}

 

"Stop believing in Objectivity and our whole way of life, and the whole universe will be utterly destroyed!"

Catastrophizing cant really argue or think clearly.

 

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.

No I spoke to the Intersubjective. There is no Objective that can be demonstrated in any way. Prove me wrong please with an argument other than 'A tree!'.

 

I will agree with you regarding illusions and delusions though.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Seth Ananda

[Marblehead]

If someone thinks something looks like a loaf of bread, then it does...

Agreed. I am not trying to lessen the importance of our individual subjective. Our subjective is just as important os the objective. However, subjective is individual whereas objective is pretty much universal.

[iain]

Agreed. I am not trying to lessen the importance of our individual subjective. Our subjective is just as important os the objective. However, subjective is individual whereas objective is pretty much universal.

Objective is only universal to "You" with out the observer it becomes subjective by default.

 

A subject exists before it is nominated and thus objectified; our awareness of it is irrelevant.

 

[Marblehead]

You sure do seem to be having a lot of fun with this. That's good.

 

I'm wondering where you came up with this "intersubjective" because here in this thread from you is the first time I have ever heard the word/concept.

Of course I do, and of course you do. Dropping a false notion like objectivity does not turn you into a vegetable. You will simply continue to be what you have always been. An intersubjective person, yet who now no longer believes in objectivity.

But why would I want to stop using a word/concept that has worked well for me for 73 years?

 

They are not examples and in no way qualify proof.

Saying "you can bump in to a tree so therefore ~ Objectivity!" does not in any way qualify as science, evidence, or even logic, if logic means following careful steps to something self evident.

Well, of course you aren't going to accept that. You are trying to dismiss objectivity.

 

Not really. "I told him about tree's so lets just move on" is what has happened. If you want it to be fair, take the example of bumping into a tree, and break it down. See if we can find something actually objective within it?

The tree existed. It didn't require anyone to see it and place subjective values upon it. It's just that simple. No need to destroy the tree.

 

Why would I just 'accept' those views? Apparently science is not a religion?

Well, apparently you are not "just accepting" those views because we are still discussing them.

 

No, science is not a religion. Oftentimes science has to change its mind because understandings have changed. Religions have a hard time dealing with change.

My stance remember is that there 'could be' an objective universe, but that no one will ever know anything about, or experience it. Weirdly it was the process of falsification that got me to my current perspective. When I first read this Idea, I was like "no...!" so I then started analysing everything i could about my experience to try and find something that could genuinely be called objective. I couldn't.

Senses are a measurement system.

Interesting. I can't speak to your experiences as I didn't have them.

 

Yes, even our measurement systems are subjective.

 

We see based on the available rod and cones in our eyes and see a completely different world to other creatures with different eyes.

We hear the 'world' within our available hearing spectrum.

Ect...

Yes, different species have different capabilities and capacities. Even the difference between individuals of the same species can sometimes be vast.

 

Maths results are based on a human construct, based on our particular numerical systems....

Agree. This is subjective although many are commonly accepted.

 

Measurement systems are approximations based on time. If you say its 10 feet to the shore, well the shore edge is constantly moving, so Australia being 4100 km across from shore to shore is also an approximation.

Any other example that can be thought of can be found to be subjective or intersubjective.

Yep. That's subjective stuff. But it is a fact that Australia is an island so there will be average distances between any two shores.

 

Real by what standards? Existing by what standards? Sight? Experience? Thermal Imaging?

Consider the universe prior to the evolution of man. Everything that existed, existed objectively because there was no one to place their subjective values upon those things.

 

I think there is a core fear around most people and this subject. Subjectivity has been rubbished and demonised for so long as being Objectivities poor shabby second cousin.

I don't recall ever doing that. I have strongly pointed out the differences because these differences are important when discussion this subject as well as very important when discussing the concept of "dualities".

 

This means people are terrified that dropping the concept will result in a wooly thinking epidemic, which is why an understanding of Intersubjective is so important, to ease irrational fears that suddenly the laws of physics wont apply or 1+1 will now equal a Marshmallow! {or anything you want really}

But then maybe it is because they have no problem with the concept of objectivity?

 

"Stop believing in Objectivity and our whole way of life, and the whole universe will be utterly destroyed!"

Catastrophizing cant really argue or think clearly.

Not really. The universe doesn't give a shit about what I think. It just keeps merrily rolling along. It functioned well before I was born and will continue to do so after I die. My subjective values mean absolutely nothing to the objective.

 

No I spoke to the Intersubjective. There is no Objective that can be demonstrated in any way. Prove me wrong please with an argument other than 'A tree!'.

 

How about a closed door? I have walked into a closed door in darkness that I thought was open. The door was an objective object. I was an objective object. The thought that it was open was subjective. The fact that it was closed was objective. This cause a conflict between the subjective and the objective. I couldn't change the objective so I changed my subjective understanding as to the door being open. I then opened the door and walked through the doorway. At this point the subjective and objective were in synch.

 

Anyhow, it is nice that you think about these things because these things create reality as we understand it.

[Marblehead]

Objective is only universal to "You" with out the observer it becomes subjective by default.

No, no, no, no, no.

 

You are confusing the concepts. The objective are the Taoist "Ten Thousand Things". Seeing something as beautiful and another as ugly are the subjective.

 

A subject exists before it is nominated and thus objectified; our awareness of it is irrelevant.

 

Yes, our awareness of it is irrelevant.

 

However, the object exists before it has subjective values placed upon it.

 

The only things we objectify are those things we create ourselves. We did not create the moon. It existed before humans did.

[iain]

I am saying then, that the Moon is subjective to Tao ... That subjectivity is the underlying state of objectivity. I am not limiting my definition of sujectivity.

The siva sutras were written on the underside of a large rock

I am new to this philosophy and thus am learning the differences in meaning of English words which have been translated to the same thing from differing concepts. Thank you for then being so understanding of my ignorance.

A curious circumstance indeed

Edited November 5, 2014 by iain

[iain]

No, no, no, no, no.

 

You are confusing the concepts. The objective are the Taoist "Ten Thousand Things". Seeing something as beautiful and another as ugly are the subjective.

 

Yes, our awareness of it is irrelevant.

 

However, the object exists before it has subjective values placed upon it.

 

The only things we objectify are those things we create ourselves. We did not create the moon. It existed before humans did.

Hang on a minute; is a mountain objective or subjective if we like it?

You wont bump into it, you will experience tired legs whist walking up it, yet enjoy the experience ...

Very sore arms should you try to move it.

It was there before man, yet it is movable by him.

 

Hummm, I am not yet convinced.

[Marblehead]

Hang on a minute; is a mountain objective or subjective if we like it?

The mountain is objective. That you like it is subjective.

 

You wont bump into it, you will experience tired legs whist walking up it, yet enjoy the experience ...

Very sore arms should you try to move it.

And you might fall into one of its abysses.

 

It was there before man, yet it is movable by him.

That is true. And if it removed it will no longer be a mountain, will it? Neither objectively or subjectively.

 

Hummm, I am not yet convinced.

That's your problem, not mine. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

I am saying then, that the Moon is subjective to Tao ... That subjectivity is the underlying state of objectivity. I am not limiting my definition of sujectivity.

Ah! Let us not personify Tao in any way, please. The moon is a manifestation of Tao, that is all.

 

I would suggest that the objective is the underlying state of the subjective. Without the objective we can make no subjective value judgements on anything.

 

The siva sutras were written on the underside of a large rock

I am unable to speak to that.

 

I am new to this philosophy and thus am learning the differences in meaning of English words which have been translated to the same thing from differing concepts. Thank you for then being so understanding of my ignorance.

 

A curious circumstance indeed

You have been a great asset to this discussion. I have seen no ignorance. And you have been asking good questions and making relevant statements.

[iain]

Subjectivity does not need nor does it imply personification; there lays the crux of the difference between our understanding; I think cause of the circular nature of this conversation; we are defining the meaning of English words based upon an interpretation itself dependant upon an entire philosophical system or model.

I wonder do you know the original words for subjectivity and objectivity in the language of Tao; any other meanings that they may also have? Usage is often different between languages due to interpretation.

Edited November 5, 2014 by iain

[Marblehead]

I wonder do you know the original words for subjectivity and objectivity in the language of Tao; any other meanings that they may also have? Usage is often different between languages due to interpretation.

Nothing comes to mind in the TTC but Chuang Tzu may have spoken about it. I will see if something comes to my mind from him.