Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

wise acre said:
I raised a number of issues. I did more than simply disagree with you.

Note here: your model assumes a subject object split.

'reality' -------> data ------> senses ------> us

So your model seems to give evidence of 'objective' reality. But it is part of the assumptions you make.

By the way, dropping it will not include asking me questions.

If my first two responses I went into some arguments which you have chosen not to respond to.

In the post you are responding to you here, I raised a specific issue



Which means I was not 'simply disagreeing with you.'

In another post I responded



and in my first response I said


At no point have you explained why you think a model with a subject object split must be true. The example of the tree in the jungle does not address this issue.
Click to expand...

Ok, sorry for being a bit short, but I have posted countless posts on this subject already explaining it. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself.

In short, it comes down to this. If you don't accept objective reality you are left with full-blown solipsism, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

Objective reality ---stimuli--->
--> |senses| ---filtered data--->
--> |brain| ---filtered and processed data--->
--> consciousness

Some part of objective reality interacts and excites sensors cells in a sense organ.
For example, a beam of photons hits the retina, some photons (only those that fall within the range of the visible spectrum) cause chemical reactions within the cells of the retina which eventually produce a signal, which travels along the optic nerves towards the visual cortex.
The visual cortex processes this data further, 'highlight' moving objects, facial recognition etc (of course other areas in the brain are involved as well). At some point it must also by compared to preexisting memories, etc.
Eventually it is presented to the consciousness (whatever that is), and this is what we perceive.
Notice that the original data was filtered at least twice and processed multiple times before we even are aware of it. Our perception is based on objective reality, but it has been cut, stripped and molded before it is presented to us.
In fact, nowhere does the data leave objective reality (we are apart of it ourselves). Therefor consciousness/awareness/experience is an illusion (for lack of a better word).

If this model weren't correct then how come different people have similar perception of the same object independently of one another ?
 
To Ham:

If you are only saying that anything is possible until proven to be false or impossible, then I have no concern with that. Your: absent proof it does not exist "gives it more creditability" seemed to be a more positive assertion, but I can even agree with that, provided you were implying: "More than zero creditability."

For example, I would guess that the chance of unicorns being on that planet are less than 1E-40. which seems sort of zero like to me, not "more creditable."
 
Perhaps it is. Unless the other people don't exist.

You're stepping over a number of assumptions you are making.

You assume you exist.
You assume your senses are reliable.
You assume that your reliable senses are sending information to a reliable brain.
You assume that other people exist because you perceive them.....

Assumption based on assumption does not a strong foundation make.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Perhaps it is. Unless the other people don't exist.

You're stepping over a number of assumptions you are making.

You assume you exist.
You assume your senses are reliable.
You assume that your reliable senses are sending information to a reliable brain.
You assume that other people exist because you perceive them.....

Assumption based on assumption does not a strong foundation make.
Click to expand...
Well, this makes no sense..
 
Objective reality is the only one that exists. Objective reality is what we experience with the senses. It is colored by beliefs, superstitions, personal hang ups, etc.
 
Billy-precisely.

There is more than a zero chance that anything is possible until it is proven that something cannot happen under any circumstances, ever. Inasmuch as testing anything for an infinite number of possibilities might take a while, until it is complete one can assume anything one wants.
 
Objective reality-all there is that is possible?

Do you believe Aliens exist? Yes or No, it doesn't matter. You are appealing to a belief. You are doing the same thing with objective reality.

Think about assumption. Do you disagree you are assuming those things?
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Objective reality-all there is that is possible?

Do you believe Aliens exist? Yes or No, it doesn't matter. You are appealing to a belief. You are doing the same thing with objective reality.

Think about assumption. Do you disagree you are assuming those things?
Click to expand...

Would you please put into words what you think objective reality is ?
 
I think objective reality would be all things which were possible to perceive by all perceivers in exactly the same way.

You?
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I think objective reality would be all things which were possible to perceive by all perceivers in exactly the same way.

You?
Click to expand...

Reality how it really is, devoid of interpretation etc.

See, we are already in disagreement about the concept itself..
My definition of objective reality says that it impossible to perceive it, yours is quite the opposite.
 
Exactly.

Enmos believes in something which cannot be perceived.

I refuse to believe in something which cannot be perceived.

...

Sort of ironic, considering which of us is theist and which is atheist... LOL
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Exactly.

Enmos believes in something which cannot be perceived.

I refuse to believe in something which cannot be perceived.

...

Sort of ironic, considering which of us is theist and which is atheist... LOL
Click to expand...

It cannot be perceived directly.

You don't agree that the stimuli our senses receive are the same for everyone in the same situation ?
 
Enmos said:
I don't know what you mean by that. How can objective reality be false ?...
Click to expand...
All of the senses can be easily demonstrated to be self contradicting (in normal people, no drugs etc.).

For example the same color yellow circle surrounded by blue will immediately not be perceived to be the same color as an identical one near it surrounded by red. Or after starring at well illuminated yellow spot a few minute and then gaze a white wall will allow you to see blue spot that is not there.

Right hand which has been in ice water for a few minutes while left has been in 112F water will contradict each other if both placed into same 72 degree water (one telling that 72 degree water is warm and the other that it is cold.)

Etc. for ALL the other senses.

I will not go into details but humans are such visually dominated creatures that you will NOT believe where your hand actually is (Hand not directly visible as it, and items it is reaching for, are under a table or behind a curtain.) if what your eyes are seeing is video of your hand's position delayed by a fraction of a second. Even more startling and easy to do is watch your hand crumble into small pieces in the positive after image of it you see with it still pressed against a wall in a dark room. (Your hand is actually at your side and of course not crumbling.)

This is more strong support for my strange POV about how perception actually works ( My Real Time Simulation, RTS)* IMHO, what is happening is as the after image fades, you piece-by-piece are beginning to re-construct it in the RTS where it actually is, (at your side and no longer on the wall), but until it fades, vision dominates and you perceive it as on the wall still, even if penching your leg with it!

Why it fades with piece by piece abruptly disappearing rather than just all fading out together I also understand. The after image is fixed on the retina. Any image fixed on the retina for example the letter T will fade as the SAME retinal nerves are growing tired. (Normal vision has a constant very fine scale jitter of the eyes so you can stare as long as you like at a T on a piece of paper and it will not fade away.) Because V1 of the visual cortex is geometrically dissecting images into "characteristics" such as line segments (or angles between two intersecting lines, line ends or "terminators" etc.) which it will report to higher levels of the visual processing, The T image fixed on your retina will soon become only | or __ or perhaps even _ _ and occasionally again as T.

The accepted "emergent" POV of perception is very embarrassed by the fact the first stages of processing in the visual cortex is to tear the retinal image in more than a dozen "characteristic" and send them separately off to DIFFERENT part of the brain for further processing AND THEY NEVER COME BACK TOGETHER IN ANY BRAIN TISSUE, as far as anyone can tell. For example color goes to V5 where the retinal signals are re-coded into a new three axis basis vector set (light/dark, yellow/blue & red/green). Yet despite fact that the color and shape characteristics NEVER are rejoined in any part of the brain for you to correctly perceive a yellow tennis ball and green block you will instead of perceive a green ball and yellow block! My RTS view has no problem with this and even offers a reason why dissection into characteristics is more efficient. (Sort of same reason a pilot checks out his airplane characteristic, by characteristic. -That is the most efficient way to be sure the plane is ready to fly or that the RTS is making a valid copy of the real world also.) More at link* also.

To return to the point:

SUMMARY: All of your senses are demonstrable very subject to error and much more so than what might be called illusion, but of course that is a sense error also.
-----------------
*For discusion of the RTS and some of the other proofs that I am correct with it instead of the accepted and very vague "perception emerges" POV, See:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
for details, and evidence supporting this non-standard POV. It is a long read, about 8 pages if printed, and more about how free will may be possible without violation of laws of physics than the RTS, but some of the evidence for the RTS is provided.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy-Very good point.

Enmos-How do you "indirectly" perceive something without "directly" perceiving anything?
 
Billy T said:
SUMMARY: All of your senses are demonstrable very subject to error and much more so than what might be called illusion, but of course that is a sense error also.
Click to expand...

Yes, and for them to be in error they have to be in error in relation to objection reality.
And since Ham agreed with you, he agrees with me. One down, a gazillion to go ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top