Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

[Billy T]

"Sound" is just as much a "preception" as is "color." - Both are mental constructs usually produced by external waves
(repeative oscillations, one characteristic of which is a wavelength). Both can be experienced without any external stimulation, although "ringing in the ear" is more common than color (Except when intentionally produced from viewing white surface in white light after having fatigued the neurons which cause the perception of color in V4 of the visual cortex. - I.e. by stare at well illuminated red spot for a few minutes then look at white wall, etc. and perceive green spot. Color need not be associated with any particular frequency of light.)

The common rainbow is the result of two internal reflections within the drops of water. A less common rainbow, with larger arc and colors in reversed order, can often be seen when the common one is strong. It has three internal reflections and two surface refractions.

I do not normally describe the change of direction of light rays produced by refraction as "scattering" but reserve this term for external, irregular reflection.

 

[Bishadi]

Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly. Perception is necessarily colored by interpretation, expectation, etc.
We make up our own version of reality in our mind which is based on (part) of objective reality, let's refer to it as subjective reality.

Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.

When our brain is fed this data it interprets it based on:
- memory of previous experiences;
- character, which is the product of in part genetic but mostly environmental circumstances in our childhood;
- knowledge/believes;
- immediate environmental demands.
Then value is assigned to anything that is perceived according to above circumstances.
And so we end up with our own version of reality; subjective reality.

This is my view and I am convinced of it's correctness, but feel free to add or criticize.

Discuss

the 2 realities do not convey truth, they suppliment opinion! Basically because even with 'evidence' the evidence itself may be misdefined. (eg.. gravity/dark matter)


'Objective' ***Definitions of objective on the Web:

•undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.

i like the idea but

then 'laws' would NEVER be used to overcome EVIDENCE!

(which is the flaw of today's scientific 'community')

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by Enmos
Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.

thats exactly what objective reality is

but I disagree with Bishadi , it is philosophy that has far more a problem with this than does science

 

[EndLightEnd]

I think solipsism makes the most sense if you consider individual consciousness as "branches" from the base consciousness. In that sense, as in many eastern philosophies, individuality is an illusion and compassion for all existence is practiced.

Following from that, what we consider objective reality is our "self" as a species projecting a mirror of itself (like a fractal or hologram, the information about the whole is contained in any piece) conforming to conscious we hold. In a sense, it is a feedback system.

 

[Algernon]

Objective reality can either be independent of the mind, like enmos was saying, or it could also be an ultimate assimilation of all the theoretically possible conscious minds out there.
Existence without interpretation seems pretty uneventful and rather wasteful if you think about it. All this organization through random chance and sustained seems like a major waste of energy, unless we had some kind of purpose, whatever that may be.

I kind of want to branch off of endlight's idea that the self is a fractal... we might be able to extrapolate that philosophy and assume that everything within an individual is a reality relative to that specific individual. However, if we were to consider objective reality, we'd have to consider two states of reality, subjective reality and objective reality. We already defined the conditions of objective reality to be something that is separate from the mind, but in that case it also suggests a state of existence without interpretation or meaning. In fact, why do we even care; objective reality is rather boring.
---> On the other hand, this is where it gets interesting. Subjectivity is the state of varying interpretations, variability due to the different standards, cultural, or personal experiences and preferences that influence the perception of different situations or conditions. Although each individual can be different and sometimes even contradictory, it is only when the whole is taken, or an assimilation of all consciousnesses that we can define the boundries of subjective reality. In doing so, it would actually become its own objective reality as all realities are contained therein and no other possible realities could exist that aren't within those confines.

So in a sense, what I'm trying to say, and it sounds rather confabulated or round-about way of saying it, but every conscious individual is actually a fractal of a larger less tangible existence; a human being is a part of "God" and exists as "God" at the same time. This gives us the illusion that we are the center of existence; that each one of us feels that we are part of an existence of others that are like us but in different identities, except that we are confined to the boundries of our organic compartmentalized apparatuses. Rarely do we ever think or make decisions based on a view that is not from our own, and I'm not speaking in the sense of "putting yourself in another's shoes" (although that might help make this world a more loving or peaceful place) but rather picking a blue car even if you like the color red just because some guy in texas likes red cars; or doing something based on the personal history and preferences of a person you have never met before. We have only ourselves to rely on when making decisions, and even external influences and the degree to how they affect our choices are essentially a biased decision profoundly embedded within our centralized cores.
In order to connect with others, we have communication in language, behavior, and even assumptions. But imagine if we had mutualistic trust and complacency in the decisions and choices of people around us, and how easy it would be to get along in this symbiotic system. Some people might call that "love".

 

[Enmos]

thats exactly what objective reality is

but I disagree with Bishadi , it is philosophy that has far more a problem with this than does science

I agree.

 

[swarm]

I don't see how the answer is obvious. I used to think it didn't matter because the sound would still be made, that is until I had to redefine what I thought was sound.

And black is white if you are willing to redefine what you think is black.

If it meant sound waves, then yes, it would make sound waves in the forest. However, if it were in space or a vacuum of a forest then that would not at all be possible.

Incorrect. Anytime two objects collide sound waves are produced within the objects themselves.

What if it just so happens that the sound we heard was not from the tree falling

Then the premise that "a tree fell" is false.

Nothing you've said leads me to conclude there is a problem saying that if a tree falls in the wood and no one hears it, it still makes a sound even if no one knows about it. It is only the incredible hubris of humanity that leads it to think any other possibility has merit.

 

[Enmos]

It is only the incredible hubris of humanity that leads it to think any other possibility has merit.

:worship:

 

[swarm]

"Sound" is just as much a "perception" as is "color."

So your precision with technical language seems sorely limited. Sound is a form of energy. Hearing is the perception of sound. Perceiving something which is not actually present is a hallucination.

I do not normally describe

And I care about what you "normally" don't do because...?

 

[swarm]

I think solipsism makes the most sense if you consider individual consciousness as "branches" from the base consciousness. In that sense, as in many eastern philosophies, individuality is an illusion and compassion for all existence is practiced.

Well except for solopsism being the complete antithesis of the ground of consciousness from eastern philosophy as it is the ultimate proposal that the delusional "I" is god.

 

[Bishadi]

thats exactly what objective reality is

but without a mind, the object(s) cannot be described.

not that emotions should run the rendition, but that the knowledge to convey it must be comprehended

reality is just reality but opinions can be biased or even objective (without personal bias)

but I disagree with Bishadi , it is philosophy that has far more a problem with this than does science

philosophy is not bound to evidence; the sciences are.

So the opinion of a law, to impose rules to nature, can be biased over objectivity.

"hot will go cold'.............. (the law of nature per the 2LoT) (which is like making man from mud/dust; Is just stupid based on the misunderstanding of reality)

objective claims don't have a bias, such if i said the evolution of living things from a single celled critter shares that the life of the mass, NEVER could have equilibriated or we all would not be here, is just basic common sense

but to say: life: abuses entropy ......... just pisses off any physicist almost as bad as telling the pope "jesus aint god."

so be certain the scientific laws incorporated into the sciences have cause a bias just as nasty as the religious folks

 

[Algernon]

Nothing you've said leads me to conclude there is a problem saying that if a tree falls in the wood and no one hears it, it still makes a sound even if no one knows about it. It is only the incredible hubris of humanity that leads it to think any other possibility has merit.

I'm not actually suggesting that it in fact makes no sound in the forest or that it doesn't exist. If you read my later post, a tree falling is only considered falling if somebody interprets it that way. Something else, might disagree, whatever that something is, saying that the tree is not falling, but rather repositioning itself, lying down, or trying to feed the floor organisms.

Even though I may argue a lot of times on something that seems to be very obvious, it is always fun to take the less simple side to argue, in order to gain a new perspective on something that we may have thought was concrete evidence. The world used to think the Earth was flat. We also were taught that Pluto was a planet. The actual situations did not change, we were not wrong in assuming those ideas, for Pluto still exists and the ground we walk on still does appear flat relative to ourselves and sizes. Its just that our interpretations of those things evolved.

I may be wrong a lot, and I choose to do so to put myself out on a limb so that I, as well as others, might be able to learn, but in most cases people only become fustrated and view me as stubborn for trying to argue somethign that seems unarguable. My philosophy is that everything must be viewed as with an open mind, and that even if you still believe one way, it does help to consider the possibility that anything you know to be true can be wrong, even if its a low possibility. Always thinking outside the box and the "what ifs".

 

[thinking]

“ “ Originally Posted by Enmos
Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.

agreed

but without a mind, the object(s) cannot be described.

but to the object being described by a mind , it is irrelevant to the true Nature of the the object its self

 

[thinking]

philosophy is not bound to evidence

thats where philosophy has gone wrong

what is the point of dwelling upon that which is self evident

water is essential for life for instance , why argue the point

 

[thinking]

philosophy is not bound to evidence; the sciences are.

true but so is philosophy

it just that philosophy seems to think that it is exempt of evidence , this is a fallacy , philosophy is not exempt of evidence

hence philosophy confuses people otherwise

 

[thinking]

So the opinion of a law, to impose rules to nature, can be biased over objectivity.

at times it happens

"hot will go cold'.............. (the law of nature per the 2LoT) (which is like making man from mud/dust; Is just stupid based on the misunderstanding of reality)

what is 2LoT ? explain

objective claims don't have a bias,

true

such if i said the evolution of living things from a single celled critter shares that the life of the mass, NEVER could have equilibrated or we all would not be here, is just basic common sense

rephrase this statement

but to say: life: abuses entropy ......... just pisses off any physicist almost as bad as telling the pope "jesus aint god."

so be certain the scientific laws incorporated into the sciences have cause a bias just as nasty as the religious folks

perhaps but what always straighten things out is reality its self , in the end

 

[swarm]

philosophy is not bound to evidence

Depends on the philosophy.

 

[swarm]

a tree falling is only considered falling if somebody interprets it that way.

Could not disagree more. A tree falling is a tree falling in and of itself independent of our consideration of the event

The world used to think the Earth was flat.

Not particularly.

We also were taught that Pluto was a planet.

It is in my book.

The actual situations did not change

Exactly. And how we talk about them is relevant only to us.

My philosophy is that everything must be viewed as with an open mind

An open mind doesn't mean an empty one.

 

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Bishadi


but without a mind, the object(s) cannot be described

but to the object being described by a mind , it is irrelevant to the true Nature of the the object its self

that is why i say, existence only operates ONE way!

no matter the opinions

but, without them words, math, symbols and articulation between us (people), the mass (all mankind) could not learn, evolve, convey, teach, progress; understand 'itself'

that is why the 'last word' is the math defining the 'process'

 

[Bishadi]

at times it happens

what is 2LoT ? explain

the 'at times' is where the second law of thermodynamics (2LoT) imposed constraint within the philosophical renditions of nature, bound to the math, not reality.

eg.... we all can observe evolution; the current math cannot define that 'progression' based on the incorporation of 2LoT into plancks constant (1901 pub)........... that combining is what created the term 'laws of nature' that the sciences suggest is infallible.

just as many of religion suggest, their doctrine is infallible

both teams fail in their complacent acceptance of the 'paradigm'

true




rephrase this statement

i was pointing out pure evidence that shares that 'life' did not equilibriate; hence how evolution even occurred in nature (between the associations of mass and energy)


the law is wrong (to be repealed) literally!

perhaps but what always straighten things out is reality its self , in the end

and you in them 'end times'