Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


The Nature of Reality


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Debate-Bot

UM-Debate-Bot

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 June 2009 - 07:00 PM

PerVirtuous vs marabod

This is a formal 1 vs 1 debate, full details on how the debate system works can be found in our Debates FAQ. The debate will begin with an introductory opening post from each participant followed by 5 body posts and finally a conclusion.

The computer has randomly chosen PerVirtuous to post first.

PerVirtuous is arguing in favour of Reality is an abstract concept, nothing more.

marabod is arguing against Reality is an abstract concept, nothing more.

Once the debate is complete the thread will be open to member comments.

This is an automated posting or private message.

If you have a question about the debates please visit the Debates Board FAQ.

#2    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:07 AM

When would I see something to argue against?


#3    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 June 2009 - 02:05 AM

Well, then I would publish my view first, arguing against Reality being an abstract concept.

"Abstract" in Philosophy is defined as separated, distanced from some object. Object, as a Philosophical Category, is defined as something, belonging to Reality. Therefore my opponent defines Reality through Reality itself and the semantic construction "Reality is an abstract concept" presents oxymoron "Reality is distanced from Reality (or part thereof)".

As a second argument I would use the the fact that Reality is not a Concept at all, but a Philosophical Category, which applies to the systems, containing at least two Entities, of which at least one is Observer and another is Object of observation. The perception of the Object by the Observer would be Observer's Subjective Reality, while the Object, existing independently from Observer would be Objective Reality for this system of two Entities. If the Object is also an Observer-2, then both Observers present for each other the Objective Reality, while they also both have their individual Subjective Realities.

On the general note, Objective Reality was defined by Lenin as "something, which can be photographed or anyhow copied, which is detected by our 5 senses and exists independently from us" (Materialism and Empiriocriticism). I can only extend this definition by adding "5 senses AND devices used to enhance them".

Thank you.

Edited by marabod, 30 June 2009 - 02:17 AM.


#4    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 02 July 2009 - 06:21 PM

Forgive my tardiness. Something came up.


marabod on Jun 29 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

Well, then I would publish my view first, arguing against Reality being an abstract concept.

"Abstract" in Philosophy is defined as separated, distanced from some object. Object, as a Philosophical Category, is defined as something, belonging to Reality. Therefore my opponent defines Reality through Reality itself and the semantic construction "Reality is an abstract concept" presents oxymoron "Reality is distanced from Reality (or part thereof)".



This is extremely oversimplified. Let us look at the introduction to "abstract" from Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The abstract/concrete distinction has a curious status in contemporary philosophy. It is widely agreed that the distinction is of fundamental importance. But there is no standard account of how the distinction is to be explained. There is a great deal of agreement about how to classify certain paradigm cases. Thus it is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract, whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete. Indeed the list of paradigms may be extended indefinitely:

ABSTRACTA....................                   CONCRETA
Classes...........................                   Stars  
Propositions....................                  Protons
Concepts........................                  The electromagnetic field
The letter A.....................                  Stanford University
Dante's Inferno...............              James Joyce's copy of Dante's Inferno

The challenge remains, however, to say what underlies this alleged dichotomy. In the absence of such an account, the philosophical significance of the contrast remains uncertain. We may know how to classify things as abstract or concrete by appeal to "intuition". But unless we know what makes for abstractness and concreteness, we cannot know what (if anything) hangs on the classification.


It is a common ploy to pretend that things are always cut and dried so that an argument can be presented as "true" when it is only theoretical. Since there is no agreement across philosophy as to the nature of concrete vs abstract, I direct your attention to the list given. Reality is not in the same category with Stars, Protons, etc. It belongs in the category with Concepts and Propositions. Since reality can never be fully comprehended or even defined properly, it is not a "thing in itself" and is not concrete. I address this with the following:


Philosophy Dictionary:

reality


That which there is. The question of how much of it there is forms the dispute between realists and anti-realists. Does it include: numbers, possibilities, the future, the past, other minds, colours, tastes, the external world, mind as well as matter, or matter as well as experience?

http://www.answers.com/topic/reality


So we have a definition of reality: "That which is." Yet, there is no concensus or agreement on what is. I will explain why further on.



Quote

As a second argument I would use the the fact that Reality is not a Concept at all, but a Philosophical Category, which applies to the systems, containing at least two Entities, of which at least one is Observer and another is Object of observation. The perception of the Object by the Observer would be Observer's Subjective Reality, while the Object, existing independently from Observer would be Objective Reality for this system of two Entities. If the Object is also an Observer-2, then both Observers present for each other the Objective Reality, while they also both have their individual Subjective Realities.


This is the problem. Observer 1, who has the ability to perceive, is considered being subjective. An object is allowed, however, to validate itself as objectively real. Just how does it do this independent of perception? By what means or mechanism. It doesn't. Observer 1a, the narrator, is projecting another observation into the equation that he is not taking responsibility for. It is a "phantom" observer who sees everything objectively and validates the object. Then we go to obsever 2, who is also considered to be subjective. If we remove the phantom observer from the equation:

"If the Object is also an Observer-2, then both Observers present for each other the Objective Reality"

How is this done if both observer 1 and 2 are subjective? Where is this objective reality coming from? It is projected synthetically. There is no observer validating reality. It is a phantom belief, not a reasonable philosophical theory as presented.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. ~Albert Einstein

Quote

On the general note, Objective Reality was defined by Lenin as "something, which can be photographed or anyhow copied, which is detected by our 5 senses and exists independently from us" (Materialism and Empiriocriticism). I can only extend this definition by adding "5 senses [i]AND devices used to enhance them


This is once again a vast oversimplification of the subject. Materialism and Empiriocriticism are categorized as "beliefs" as are Christianity, Judeaism, Islam, and Buddhism. They are philosophical beliefs, but beliefs none-the-less.To then take the mechanisms of these belief systems and claim they create "objective reality" is no different than saying "God is objective reality". Until my friend comes up with the identity of his magical observer who grants everything its state of objective realness and how this is done, all that he has really presented are observer 1 and observer 2, both with subjective realities. Since subjective reality is an oxymoron, we do not yet have any reality at all, other than a definition where nobody seems to be able to agree upon the interpretation. In my mind, this makes "reality" an abstract concept yet to be defined and proven.

The words 'real' and 'reality' are used in a variety of different senses; it is therefore impossible to give a single satisfactory definition of them. Moreover, in the most fundamental sense in which they are used they are indefinable. Their meaning is best made clear by considering certain correlative expressions in which they are commonly met (e.g., reality and appearance) and by discussing their relations to certain other notions with which they are very closely connected (e.g., existence).

http://www.ditext.com/broad/reality.html



As you can see, there is no accepted or proven "reality", just a bunch of different philisophical constructs which posit their individual "belief" in what it is. Any of them which claim that their understanding is "genuine" and "actual" is speaking from belief only, and not from a preponderance of evidence.



.

Edited by PerVirtuous, 02 July 2009 - 06:47 PM.


#5    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 July 2009 - 06:51 PM

Quote

reality

That which there is. The question of how much of it there is forms the dispute between realists and anti-realists. Does it include: numbers, possibilities, the future, the past, other minds, colours, tastes, the external world, mind as well as matter, or matter as well as experience?


The response makes me to repeat myself: "that which there is" cannot be distant from itself irrelevantly of how it is defined internally. Contents do not define the Reality and certainly cannot be abstract from it. Reality is not a Concept but a Philosophical Category, and the Concepts can be only explanations of some selected Reality, not the Reality itself.

The mechanisms of how exactly the Observers observe the Object can be literally any, same as the physical ways of how Mathematical 2 adds to 2 can be literally any, and the Logical Operation of Addition does not deal with these mechanisms, but only with Addition itself. Same as Philosophical Categories do not operate with the mechanisms but with the Principles. No Concept is possible when no Reality for it is admitted, as without Reality itself Concepts do not have Objects to operate with, because all Objects only exist in Realities. For example Logical Operations are abstract and thus distanced from the Objects of Reality, but not from Reality itself, as they exist within Subjective Reality of some Observers - but if the Observer has a Subjective Reality at all (Cogito ergo sum), then this Observer has some Object to observe and thus exists in Objective Reality too. Reality is not existing if there is no Observer to observe its Objects, as for it to exist it must have Objective and Subjective forms. Thus, have to insist again, Reality is not a concept and not abstract, it is a factual case of Observed Existence.


#6    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 02 July 2009 - 07:11 PM

marabod on Jul 2 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

The response makes me to repeat myself: "that which there is" cannot be distant from itself irrelevantly of how it is defined internally. Contents do not define the Reality and certainly cannot be abstract from it. Reality is not a Concept but a Philosophical Category, and the Concepts can be only explanations of some selected Reality, not the Reality itself.


If I drop a quarter 100 times and it falls to the floor, it is reasonable to assume that it will also fall to the floor on the 101st time. This is a theory based upon the proponderance of evidence. It is not, however, proof. If on the 101st time a pack rat goes racing across the floor, jumps up, grabs the quarter, lands and runs away, then my assumption was reasonable, but incorrect. Reality cannot be assumed. We can never assume that we know all of the possible variables.

Centuries ago, people believed the world was flat. New information came which proved what they believed to be reality was not. Who are we to think that in 500 years more, it will not be recognized that what we think is reality is not? Until we have all the facts and there is not a vast amount of unknowns, we can never prove we know reality. We never know if a pack rat will come out and screw up our assumptions. We can make predictions to a high degree of probability. Sure. But the definition of "reality" is not "what has a high degree of probability" the definition is: "That which there is." Since we do not have any method for determining this, we have no reality.

Quote

The mechanisms of how exactly the Observers observe the Object can be literally any, same as the physical ways of how Mathematical 2 adds to 2 can be literally any, and the Logical Operation of Addition does not deal with these mechanisms, but only with Addition itself. Same as Philosophical Categories do not operate with the mechanisms but with the Principles. No Concept is possible when no Reality for it is admitted, as without Reality itself Concepts do not have Objects to operate with, because all Objects only exist in Realities. For example Logical Operations are abstract and thus distanced from the Objects of Reality, but not from Reality itself, as they exist within Subjective Reality of some Observers - but if the Observer has a Subjective Reality at all (Cogito ergo sum), then this Observer has some Object to observe and thus exists in Objective Reality too. Reality is not existing if there is no Observer to observe its Objects, as for it to exist it must have Objective and Subjective forms. Thus, have to insist again, Reality is not a concept and not abstract, it is a factual case of Observed Existence.


All you have done is proven the existence of subjectiveness. You have assumed objectiveness. It has not actually been observed, nor have you made a clear cut distinction between where subjectiveness ends and objectiveness begins. You have no actual evidence of it or its existence, you are only saying that subjectiveness must be a subset of objectiveness. There is no reason objectiveness has to exist. "That which there is." may indeed be different for different observers and, therefore, an incorrectly interpreted definition. If, indeed the definition "That which there is." is relative to the observer, and therefore, there are as many different but actual views of "reality" as observers, then it is impossible to verify. This would make "reality" as impossible to prove as "God" and "Objective reality" impossible. It is nothing more than the emperor's new clothes. You claim to see it when others claim it looks completely different. If there is no consensus, then how do we arrive at the agreement as to the state that it is "real"? You are again projecting based solely upon subjective assumptions. Just because we have created a Philosophical Category for something is neither proof it exists nor proof that it is real. You are still discussing belief.




.

Edited by PerVirtuous, 02 July 2009 - 07:33 PM.


#7    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 July 2009 - 09:29 PM

Quote

"That which there is." may indeed be different for different observers and, therefore, an incorrectly interpreted definition. If, indeed the definition "That which there is." is relative to the observer, and therefore, there are as many different but actual views of "reality" as observers, then it is impossible to verify. This would make "reality" as impossible to prove as "God" and "Objective reality" impossible.


"Observer" is not defined as "human observer". Observer is anything which can register the Objects in the Reality it belongs to. Observer can be a snail and the Object can be a cabbage leaf, and yet the snail has its Subjective Reality and cabbage leaf exists independently from the snail and makes its Objective Reality, and this Objective Reality can be synchronized with the Objective Reality of the OTHER similar Observers, other SNAILS, in which Subjective Realities this leaf would appear similar way. When there is only one Observer and one Object, there is no opportunity to have independent Subjective perception and the Objective Reality cannot be synchronized, but the leaf still exists INDEPENDENTLY from the snail.

Different types of Subjective Reality belong to different types of Observers. However we are unable to synchronize our Objective Reality with the other types of Observers, because we can not communicate with them and do not know what their Subjective Realities are - we are only able to synchronize Objective Reality with the Observers of our own type, with human observers. This can be presented in inverted way - we all are humans BECAUSE we can synchronize common Objective Reality. There is no Concept to synchronize in it except for its existence, which we all admit in a synchronized form. If the human Observers synchronize the perception of sky as "blue" and I disagree and think it to be "pink" instead, then there is only two possibilities - either I am not a human Observer OR my senses operate differently from the other humans, i.e. malfunction.

The same time if I am not a human, I would not be able to communicate with the other humans and understand what "blue" means in their perceptional terms; and if I am a human (or just generally "Sapience") and able to communicate and know that the "blue" is the colour of the sky, then I would also consider my "pink" as "blue" in synchronized terms, as we cannot synchronize our Subjective Realities, and may all see differently the colour which we all agree to call "blue". Practical confirmation is that for instance English-speakers may perceive blue colour differently from non-English speakers, as the tests show that Slavic-speakers faster distinguish between "blue" and "navy blue" and have DIFFERENT colour names for them in spectrum. But objectively the colour of the sky we all refer to is defined by the certain electromagnetic wavelength which Nitrogen reflects, as it is Nitrogen which is "blue" in thick layers - and de-facto in Objective Reality we all admit this wavelength.

Subjectively observed part of Objective Reality is all entirety of the Objects we all agree upon them existing, as "That which there is." has only one meaning of practical existence for all similar type human Observers (who all use the same 5 senses as per Lenin's definition). Whatever falls outside of these senses does not exist in Objective Reality because we cannot register this Object. Science, however, comes up with the devices which extend our senses to the degree, when we can register something which our 5 senses cannot register - for example presence of Copper in tap water or a remote solar system. This however cannot be synchronized with all human Observers, but only with that group of these Observers which agree that Copper can exist in a form of soluble compounds and agree on the possibility for the other solar systems to exist. The latter fact reflects another property of Objective Reality - it exists INDEPENDENTLY from the Subjective opinions of the majority of Observers, as the more Objects we Subjectively observe, the larger our perceived part of Objective Reality becomes. Those Observers who ignore the existence of Copper in water still drink it the same way as those who are aware of its presence.

The fact of the above Copper being present can thus be ignored, accepted on faith or observed personally with the help of special devices, extending our senses. One way or another this fact enters the Subjective Realities and then becomes somehow synchronized between the Observers, except for those who ignore it, but Subjectively ignoring something which exists Objectively does not affect its existence, and if I ignore the approaching truck and still cross the road, this fact of Subjectively ignoring the truck would Objectively remove me from the list of Observers, because this truck exists Objectively (independently from me) and its driver does not Subjectively know that I Subjectively ignore his truck.

Thus Objective Reality exists separately from Subjective Realities of the Observers, but both taken together make up the entire Reality, which is a Philosophical Category embracing all Observed Existing Entities. Applying this to God one can say that God is present in the Reality (as God is present in some Subjective Realities of the Observers), but does not exist in Objective Reality, as God cannot be copied, photographed, reflected by our 5 senses or devices extending them, and does not exist independently from us. This "independently" means that for God to be present, there must Subjective Reality exist, which contains unobserved object "God". Same relates to Spaghetti Monster and planet Mumba-Jumba from the constellation of Street Walkers.


#8    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 July 2009 - 11:51 PM

Quote

ABSTRACTA.................... CONCRETA
Classes........................... Stars
Propositions.................... Protons
Concepts........................ The electromagnetic field
The letter A..................... Stanford University
Dante's Inferno............... James Joyce's copy of Dante's Inferno


The above tables include Objects, existing in Reality and thus being observed (concrete) and Subjective classifications of these Objects (abstract). Objects exist in Objective Reality - their classifications exist in Subjective Realities. Our agreement made upon some Subjective classifications does not make them to be a part of Objective Reality, for example we can agree that Concepts exist, but the same time we may disagree on their content. Say, I disagree that Electromagnetic Field is a Concept because it is a really existing part of Objective Reality, which can be MEASURED and which exists independently from us. Concepts are thus Subjective.

Things abstract do not exist objectively, as they suggest Abstract Thinking, which is Subjective. Reality exists independently from Abstract Thinking, as the animals do not have Abstract thinking, but they have their own Subjective Realities and can observe Objective Reality and share it with other Observers, even of not their type. My dog shares the Objective Reality with me, but not to the full extent of how it exists for me. Same way my dog's observed Objective Reality can be in some parts Subjectively different from mine, as Objectively canine senses are more advanced than those of myself, so the Objects in it may have another Subjective properties than in mine (say they can have some smells content which I do not perceive). But the Objects observed would be all part of Objective Reality and exist independently from me or my dog. I do not know the taste of dog food on a plate, but this food objectively exist, same as the dog's bowl in which I put it - and we both know about it.

The presence of Subjective Realities (in which the Concepts and other Abstract things are located) is a necessary condition for Reality to exist, but these Abstract Concepts do not exist in it objectively, but only as parts of Subjective Realities, and only Objective Reality is what is determined as "really existing" exists in it independently from Observers and their Subjective Realities. Reality as such is made of Objective Reality (the physical Objects (proton, planet, human etc) and Entities (Gravity, electromagnetic field etc) existing in it AND Subjective Realities of the Observers, which by observing confirm this objective existence. Therefore Reality cannot be abstract unless it is fully 100% Subjective with no Objective part to it. But such Reality cannot be shared like amoeba cannot share with us.


#9    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 03 July 2009 - 02:50 PM

marabod on Jul 2 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

"Observer" is not defined as "human observer". Observer is anything which can register the Objects in the Reality it belongs to. Observer can be a snail and the Object can be a cabbage leaf, and yet the snail has its Subjective Reality and cabbage leaf exists independently from the snail and makes its Objective Reality, and this Objective Reality can be synchronized with the Objective Reality of the OTHER similar Observers, other SNAILS, in which Subjective Realities this leaf would appear similar way. When there is only one Observer and one Object, there is no opportunity to have independent Subjective perception and the Objective Reality cannot be synchronized, but the leaf still exists INDEPENDENTLY from the snail.


How do we know the cabbage leaf exists independently from the snail? Who makes that determination? This requires a second objective observer who you have not provided. To say it must be so requires proof, not just your belief. Where is this observer and what is your proof? How can the subjective belief of many subjective observers be distilled into objectivity? The fact they agree is not proof of objectivity. These are nothing but beliefs masquerading as facts.

The work of philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn, Stephen Toulmin and Patrick Heelan, among many others, seriously questions the long-held view that the data of science are absolutely objective - that is, that data exists in an eternally given state, always factually self-evident to anyone, anywhere, anytime. That traditional view of scientific data is broadly called positivism. Auguste Comte, a nineteenth-century French philosopher, was largely responsible for explicating and popularizing positivism, though its elements were prominent in the work of many scientists, especially that of Isaac Newton.

In his work on optics, Newton disdained the need for any hypotheses to guide the accumulation of data in scientific research. Later social researchers, such as Emile Durkheim, wanted to bring the success of natural science in the establishment of facts to their field, and followed Newton's example, asserting the brute givenness of the data involved...

...Following this line of thought, philosophy has arrived at an explanation of factuality that relies on contextualization for criteria as to what can count as data. The problem now is to reconcile this general context-dependency with a specific context- independency. Understandings are situated in general historical, cultural and linguistic contexts, but if these understandings are to mean anything at all they must be shared in a more specific fashion that is repeatable and relatively free from the influence of minor contextual changes...

...Scientific measurement is always uni-dimensional because the only way to tell what counts in life is to take things one at a time. For things to add up, conceptually as well as numerically, the arrow of meaning can go only in one direction - otherwise its path is impossible to follow. Multi-dimensional analyses of raw data make no effort toward knowing just what it is they are dealing with; the variables may be mixtures of things that the researcher ought to be concerned with but is oblivious to...

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt22e.htm


As you can see, philosopher of our time are working on this exact problem without a resolution yet. For you to present your idea of "objectiveity" as fact is simply a gross misrepresentation of what is factual. It is belief only.




Quote

Different types of Subjective Reality belong to different types of Observers. However we are unable to synchronize our Objective Reality with the other types of Observers, because we can not communicate with them and do not know what their Subjective Realities are - we are only able to synchronize Objective Reality with the Observers of our own type, with human observers. This can be presented in inverted way - we all are humans BECAUSE we can synchronize common Objective Reality. There is no Concept to synchronize in it except for its existence, which we all admit in a synchronized form. If the human Observers synchronize the perception of sky as "blue" and I disagree and think it to be "pink" instead, then there is only two possibilities - either I am not a human Observer OR my senses operate differently from the other humans, i.e. malfunction.


There is no proof that because all people perceive the sky as blue that it is objectively blue. That is assuming that humans determine objectivity. Why should they? Why shouldn't objectivity determine itself? How does subjectivity develop objectivity? It is like squeezing blood from a turnip. If there is no objectivity in subjectivity, then where does it come from? So far you have created a phantom observer who knows without needing proof. Every observer is subjective, but objectivity surrounds them anyway? How? Objectivity is observance without agenda. Who is making an observance without agenda? So far, you have not named a single quailfied candidate. You just say it exists. Where does it exist? Who is the phantom perception who perceives objectively? You say that snails can get together and create objective reality. Let's say that the way snails eyes work they all see the sky as pink. So they get together and say the sky is pink. Is this objectivity? No. You have still shown no mechanism whatever for determining what objectively is other than to create a phantom observer who magically knows it.



Quote

The same time if I am not a human, I would not be able to communicate with the other humans and understand what "blue" means in their perceptional terms; and if I am a human (or just generally "Sapience") and able to communicate and know that the "blue" is the colour of the sky, then I would also consider my "pink" as "blue" in synchronized terms, as we cannot synchronize our Subjective Realities, and may all see differently the colour which we all agree to call "blue". Practical confirmation is that for instance English-speakers may perceive blue colour differently from non-English speakers, as the tests show that Slavic-speakers faster distinguish between "blue" and "navy blue" and have DIFFERENT colour names for them in spectrum. But objectively the colour of the sky we all refer to is defined by the certain electromagnetic wavelength which Nitrogen reflects, as it is Nitrogen which is "blue" in thick layers - and de-facto in Objective Reality we all admit this wavelength.


From the above article:

This combination of a general linguistic context-dependence with a specific context-independence is so essential for perceiving or conceiving anything that, in retrospect, it seems completely natural for it to have been overlooked by those who have tried to understand science in the past. Being a fundamental presupposition of conceptualization, it was bound to be overlooked until enough anomalous information emerged to highlight the outline of something lacking.

You are still making the assumption that the subjective observer's specific observation is validated by an unproven unquestioned cumulative contextual background. By what means do we judge a specific observation when the contextual background we are using is completely subjective? That is like multiplying a meaurment of 3 inches by an unknown and expecting an accurate known result.


Quote

Subjectively observed part of Objective Reality is all entirety of the Objects we all agree upon them existing, as "That which there is." has only one meaning of practical existence for all similar type human Observers (who all use the same 5 senses as per Lenin's definition). Whatever falls outside of these senses does not exist in Objective Reality because we cannot register this Object. Science, however, comes up with the devices which extend our senses to the degree, when we can register something which our 5 senses cannot register - for example presence of Copper in tap water or a remote solar system. This however cannot be synchronized with all human Observers, but only with that group of these Observers which agree that Copper can exist in a form of soluble compounds and agree on the possibility for the other solar systems to exist. The latter fact reflects another property of Objective Reality - it exists INDEPENDENTLY from the Subjective opinions of the majority of Observers, as the more Objects we Subjectively observe, the larger our perceived part of Objective Reality becomes. Those Observers who ignore the existence of Copper in water still drink it the same way as those who are aware of its presence.


Cognitive bias
A cognitive bias is any of a wide range of observer effects identified in cognitive science and social psychology including very basic statistical, social attribution, and memory errors that are common to all human beings.

...biases related to probability and decision making significantly affect the scientific method which is deliberately designed to minimize such bias from any one observer..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/cognitive_bias.htm


We have discovered that there are cognitive biases as well as heredetary biases which affect any species. You have not made any attempt to address these. You simply assume that if everyone agrees that it makes something objective. The data in no way supports that ancient view.


Quote

The fact of the above Copper being present can thus be ignored, accepted on faith or observed personally with the help of special devices, extending our senses. One way or another this fact enters the Subjective Realities and then becomes somehow synchronized between the Observers, except for those who ignore it, but Subjectively ignoring something which exists Objectively does not affect its existence, and if I ignore the approaching truck and still cross the road, this fact of Subjectively ignoring the truck would Objectively remove me from the list of Observers, because this truck exists Objectively (independently from me) and its driver does not Subjectively know that I Subjectively ignore his truck.


You are discussing reality from the perspective of appearance only. As long as it appears the same to everyone, you are fine with calling it"real". Unfortunately, science does not work that way. We also have fields of study which test the reliability of the human perception and the data from those tests show a preponderance of evidence that the human mind can not be trusted to determine objectivity because of the bias inherent in language itself.



QUOTE
Thus Objective Reality exists separately from Subjective Realities of the Observers, but both taken together make up the entire Reality, which is a Philosophical Category embracing all Observed Existing Entities. Applying this to God one can say that God is present in the Reality (as God is present in some Subjective Realities of the Observers), but does not exist in Objective Reality, as God cannot be copied, photographed, reflected by our 5 senses or devices extending them, and does not exist independently from us. This "independently" means that for God to be present, there must Subjective Reality exist, which contains unobserved object "God". Same relates to Spaghetti Monster and planet Mumba-Jumba from the constellation of Street Walkers.


Reality cannot be copied, photographed, reflected by our five senses or devices extending from them without a perceiver who is objective, and also cannot exist independently of perceivers to deem the state itself. I agree with your last remark and have demonstrated that until you produce the phantom objective observer you snuck into this discussion without a shred of evidence to support it, reality belongs in the unprovable category with God, Spagetti monsters, planet Mumba-Jumba and the constellation of Street Walkers. The only difference between them that I can see is that you irrationally believe in reality.






.

Edited by PerVirtuous, 03 July 2009 - 03:29 PM.


#10    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 03 July 2009 - 03:15 PM

marabod on Jul 2 2009, 07:51 PM, said:

The above tables include Objects, existing in Reality and thus being observed (concrete) and Subjective classifications of these Objects (abstract). Objects exist in Objective Reality - their classifications exist in Subjective Realities. Our agreement made upon some Subjective classifications does not make them to be a part of Objective Reality, for example we can agree that Concepts exist, but the same time we may disagree on their content. Say, I disagree that Electromagnetic Field is a Concept because it is a really existing part of Objective Reality, which can be MEASURED and which exists independently from us. Concepts are thus Subjective.


How does one measure objective reality? Is a meter a large or a small measurement? Is a ton a light or a heavy weight? Measuring something is only a description of it. In no way does it give us the data to include it meaningfully in "reality". It just gives us one perspective on that measured thing accurately. This does not translate into the realness of the object or give us an understanding of reality. It only gives us a description that is more accurate than we had before it was measured, nothing more.

Quote

Things abstract do not exist objectively, as they suggest Abstract Thinking, which is Subjective. Reality exists independently from Abstract Thinking, as the animals do not have Abstract thinking, but they have their own Subjective Realities and can observe Objective Reality and share it with other Observers, even of not their type. My dog shares the Objective Reality with me, but not to the full extent of how it exists for me. Same way my dog's observed Objective Reality can be in some parts Subjectively different from mine, as Objectively canine senses are more advanced than those of myself, so the Objects in it may have another Subjective properties than in mine (say they can have some smells content which I do not perceive). But the Objects observed would be all part of Objective Reality and exist independently from me or my dog. I do not know the taste of dog food on a plate, but this food objectively exist, same as the dog's bowl in which I put it - and we both know about it.


What is the objective taste of this food? Since it tastes different to different perceivers, are all of them "reality" and there is no "singular reality" where there is one "real" taste? I deny that there is any phantom objective observer who can decide what the "objective" taste of the food is. I claim that the taste of the food is indeed a different experience for each individual and, therefore, there is no actuality to the notion of objectivity.

I am suggesting reality does not exist objectively. It is a creation of subjective minds. If it is true as suggested in quantum physics that there are different actual realities for different observers, then there is no singular reality and, therefore, no reality at all. The accurate definition of reality would have to be changed to "That which there is for any given observer." Which is subjective and, therefore, not objective reality. Since reality by definition must be objective, then there would be no reality at all.

Quote

The presence of Subjective Realities (in which the Concepts and other Abstract things are located) is a necessary condition for Reality to exist, but these Abstract Concepts do not exist in it objectively, but only as parts of Subjective Realities, and only Objective Reality is what is determined as "really existing" exists in it independently from Observers and their Subjective Realities. Reality as such is made of Objective Reality (the physical Objects (proton, planet, human etc) and Entities (Gravity, electromagnetic field etc) existing in it AND Subjective Realities of the Observers, which by observing confirm this objective existence. Therefore Reality cannot be abstract unless it is fully 100% Subjective with no Objective part to it. But such Reality cannot be shared like amoeba cannot share with us.


You say it is a necessary condition for reality to exist, and by this you mean singular static reality. Why? Why can't reality be like a fence and when you look at it from one angle it is 40 feet long and 3 feet high, but from another angle it is 3 inches wide and 3 feet tall? We can only speak intelligently of what we actually know. You have not demonstrated knowledge of "reality" as anything more than a concept, an abstract concept since it is not tangible in any way.



.

Edited by PerVirtuous, 03 July 2009 - 04:06 PM.


#11    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2009 - 05:17 PM

PerVirtuous on Jul 4 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

How do we know the cabbage leaf exists independently from the snail? Who makes that determination? This requires a second objective observer who you have not provided. To say it must be so requires proof, not just your belief. Where is this observer and what is your proof? How can the subjective belief of many subjective observers be distilled into objectivity? The fact they agree is not proof of objectivity. These are nothing but beliefs masquerading as facts.

The work of philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn, Stephen Toulmin and Patrick Heelan, among many others, seriously questions the long-held view that the data of science are absolutely objective - that is, that data exists in an eternally given state, always factually self-evident to anyone, anywhere, anytime. That traditional view of scientific data is broadly called positivism. Auguste Comte, a nineteenth-century French philosopher, was largely responsible for explicating and popularizing positivism, though its elements were prominent in the work of many scientists, especially that of Isaac Newton.

In his work on optics, Newton disdained the need for any hypotheses to guide the accumulation of data in scientific research. Later social researchers, such as Emile Durkheim, wanted to bring the success of natural science in the establishment of facts to their field, and followed Newton's example, asserting the brute givenness of the data involved...

...Following this line of thought, philosophy has arrived at an explanation of factuality that relies on contextualization for criteria as to what can count as data. The problem now is to reconcile this general context-dependency with a specific context- independency. Understandings are situated in general historical, cultural and linguistic contexts, but if these understandings are to mean anything at all they must be shared in a more specific fashion that is repeatable and relatively free from the influence of minor contextual changes...

...Scientific measurement is always uni-dimensional because the only way to tell what counts in life is to take things one at a time. For things to add up, conceptually as well as numerically, the arrow of meaning can go only in one direction - otherwise its path is impossible to follow. Multi-dimensional analyses of raw data make no effort toward knowing just what it is they are dealing with; the variables may be mixtures of things that the researcher ought to be concerned with but is oblivious to...

http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt22e.htm


As you can see, philosopher of our time are working on this exact problem without a resolution yet. For you to present your idea of "objectiveity" as fact is simply a gross misrepresentation of what is factual. It is belief only.






There is no proof that because all people perceive the sky as blue that it is objectively blue. That is assuming that humans determine objectivity. Why should they? Why shouldn't objectivity determine itself? How does subjectivity develop objectivity? It is like squeezing blood from a turnip. If there is no objectivity in subjectivity, then where does it come from? So far you have created a phantom observer who knows without needing proof. Every observer is subjective, but objectivity surrounds them anyway? How? Objectivity is observance without agenda. Who is making an observance without agenda? So far, you have not named a single quailfied candidate. You just say it exists. Where does it exist? Who is the phantom perception who perceives objectively? You say that snails can get together and create objective reality. Let's say that the way snails eyes work they all see the sky as pink. So they get together and say the sky is pink. Is this objectivity? No. You have still shown no mechanism whatever for determining what objectively is other than to create a phantom observer who magically knows it.





From the above article:

This combination of a general linguistic context-dependence with a specific context-independence is so essential for perceiving or conceiving anything that, in retrospect, it seems completely natural for it to have been overlooked by those who have tried to understand science in the past. Being a fundamental presupposition of conceptualization, it was bound to be overlooked until enough anomalous information emerged to highlight the outline of something lacking.

You are still making the assumption that the subjective observer's specific observation is validated by an unproven unquestioned cumulative contextual background. By what means do we judge a specific observation when the contextual background we are using is completely subjective? That is like multiplying a meaurment of 3 inches by an unknown and expecting an accurate known result.




Cognitive bias
A cognitive bias is any of a wide range of observer effects identified in cognitive science and social psychology including very basic statistical, social attribution, and memory errors that are common to all human beings.

...biases related to probability and decision making significantly affect the scientific method which is deliberately designed to minimize such bias from any one observer..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/cognitive_bias.htm


We have discovered that there are cognitive biases as well as heredetary biases which affect any species. You have not made any attempt to address these. You simply assume that if everyone agrees that it makes something objective. The data in no way supports that ancient view.




You are discussing reality from the perspective of appearance only. As long as it appears the same to everyone, you are fine with calling it"real". Unfortunately, science does not work that way. We also have fields of study which test the reliability of the human perception and the data from those tests show a preponderance of evidence that the human mind can not be trusted to determine objectivity because of the bias inherent in language itself.





Reality cannot be copied, photographed, reflected by our five senses or devices extending from them without a perceiver who is objective, and also cannot exist independently of perceivers to deem the state itself. I agree with your last remark and have demonstrated that until you produce the phantom objective observer you snuck into this discussion without a shred of evidence to support it, reality belongs in the unprovable category with God, Spagetti monsters, planet Mumba-Jumba and the constellation of Street Walkers. The only difference between them that I can see is that you irrationally believe in reality.






.


Sorry, mate - this is a debating, so you have to address your points in separate messages of a reasonable size. Of this I would respond to the first one only, as this seems more related to the reality as abstract concept.

Quote

How do we know the cabbage leaf exists independently from the snail? Who makes that determination? This requires a second objective observer who you have not provided. To say it must be so requires proof, not just your belief. Where is this observer and what is your proof? How can the subjective belief of many subjective observers be distilled into objectivity? The fact they agree is not proof of objectivity. These are nothing but beliefs masquerading as facts.


We know they are both independent from each other because we can observe them as independent Object of our Objective reality. I myself can see the snail observing the leaf, and can call the friends or even cops to help me observing this and confirm INDEPENDENTLY from me that I am observing a reality - they do not know what exactly I see, and when they tell me what they see and this would be the same as what I see, then I see real situation. Observer is NEVER Objective, but it objectively exists in the observed Objective Reality.

Subjectively I take their subjective confirmation as a proof of Objectivity, and due to my habit to operate only in Realities, confirmed this way (by independent Observers) then I simply discard the opinion that such confirmation may not be a fact, because this confirmation is all what I have and need to proof Objective Reality. There is only one way to confirm it is Objective - to obtain the opinions of independent Subjective Observers. Whatever has no confirmation like that - is not Objective Reality by definition. As one may notice, this approach is extremely simple, and while one cannot prove it is the only correct approach, this approach can be verified by Practice - for example in my Objective Reality water under atmospheric pressure boils at 100 Centigrade, and at elevated pressure it boils at higher temperatures. Independent Subjective observation says that if the overheated water is placed under alightly lower pressure, then its steam formed can perform what Physics call Work, before it condenses back to water. Some Mr Watt used this bizarre observation in practice, and build a Steam Machine, which we still use for already over 200 years. This machine exists in reality and can plough the field and take us from point A to point B of our Objective Reality instead of us using donkeys. This another time confirms to me that water in my Reality boils at 100 Centigrade under atmospheric pressure. I am happy with this Reality as by knowing about water I have some control over it.

Thus the only real proof that the Subjectively observed Reality is Objective Reality is Experiment and its results. If the Experiment can be performed multiple times and the results are always the same, then we deal with Objective Reality. As it was explained in the previous posts, inability to accept Objective Reality is only Subjective property of the Observer, and this denial does not change Objective Reality anyhow - the example given was with the truck, and this was also Experiment, which can be repeated multiple times provided the immediate result is not fatal.


#12    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 July 2009 - 05:31 PM

PerVirtuous on Jul 4 2009, 03:15 AM, said:

How does one measure objective reality? Is a meter a large or a small measurement? Is a ton a light or a heavy weight? Measuring something is only a description of it. In no way does it give us the data to include it meaningfully in "reality". It just gives us one perspective on that measured thing accurately. This does not translate into the realness of the object or give us an understanding of reality. It only gives us a description that is more accurate than we had before it was measured, nothing more.



What is the objective taste of this food? Since it tastes different to different perceivers, are all of them "reality" and there is no "singular reality" where there is one "real" taste? I deny that there is any phantom objective observer who can decide what the "objective" taste of the food is. I claim that the taste of the food is indeed a different experience for each individual and, therefore, there is no actuality to the notion of objectivity.

I am suggesting reality does not exist objectively. It is a creation of subjective minds. If it is true as suggested in quantum physics that there are different actual realities for different observers, then there is no singular reality and, therefore, no reality at all. The accurate definition of reality would have to be changed to "That which there is for any given observer." Which is subjective and, therefore, not objective reality. Since reality by definition must be objective, then there would be no reality at all.



You say it is a necessary condition for reality to exist, and by this you mean singular static reality. Why? Why can't reality be like a fence and when you look at it from one angle it is 40 feet long and 3 feet high, but from another angle it is 3 inches wide and 3 feet tall? We can only speak intelligently of what we actually know. You have not demonstrated knowledge of "reality" as anything more than a concept, an abstract concept since it is not tangible in any way.

In order to measure the objects of Objective Reality we first agree on the measure units we use (currently SI system) and then express the qualities of the objects in these units. "Large" or "small", "light" or "heavy" and generally "how long is a piece of string" has nothing to so with Objective Reality and are purely Subjective. Two hair on a head is not enough, but in the soup its too many.

Taste of food belongs to the senses which we use to observe Reality, this makes this taste Subjective, dependent on Observer - but the food is Objective. Other Observers can also taste it. There is a compound called Sodium Bensoate used to make most of the tablets sold. Official data on it says "tasteless", however the human Observers are divided into 5 groups on this planet - one group indeed takes it as tasteless, another groups as bitter, sweet, sour and salty...

Quote

I am suggesting reality does not exist objectively.

And I am suggesting, that if my opponent Subjectively removes themselves from Objective Reality, then such removal must be accompanied by the removal of their Concept of Reality as an Abstract Concept, as it also does not exist Objectively. On this I rest my case.  laugh.gif


#13    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 03 July 2009 - 07:40 PM

marabod on Jul 3 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

We know they are both independent from each other because we can observe them as independent Object of our Objective reality. I myself can see the snail observing the leaf, and can call the friends or even cops to help me observing this and confirm INDEPENDENTLY from me that I am observing a reality - they do not know what exactly I see, and when they tell me what they see and this would be the same as what I see, then I see real situation. Observer is NEVER Objective, but it objectively exists in the observed Objective Reality.


How is this objective reality observed? Which observer determines this objective reality? What if two of them disagree? What if they all disagree? You still have given no mechanism for determining objective reality. You have still given no proof of its existence, only told what you believe.


Quote

Subjectively I take their subjective confirmation as a proof of Objectivity, and due to my habit to operate only in Realities, confirmed this way (by independent Observers) then I simply discard the opinion that such confirmation may not be a fact, because this confirmation is all what I have and need to proof Objective Reality. There is only one way to confirm it is Objective - to obtain the opinions of independent Subjective Observers. Whatever has no confirmation like that - is not Objective Reality by definition. As one may notice, this approach is extremely simple, and while one cannot prove it is the only correct approach, this approach can be verified by Practice - for example in my Objective Reality water under atmospheric pressure boils at 100 Centigrade, and at elevated pressure it boils at higher temperatures. Independent Subjective observation says that if the overheated water is placed under alightly lower pressure, then its steam formed can perform what Physics call Work, before it condenses back to water. Some Mr Watt used this bizarre observation in practice, and build a Steam Machine, which we still use for already over 200 years. This machine exists in reality and can plough the field and take us from point A to point B of our Objective Reality instead of us using donkeys. This another time confirms to me that water in my Reality boils at 100 Centigrade under atmospheric pressure. I am happy with this Reality as by knowing about water I have some control over it.


It is also a reasonable approach. But what has been created is a more credible subjective observation, not an objective one. You are arbitrarily assinging it that terminology without proof.




Quote

Thus the only real proof that the Subjectively observed Reality is Objective Reality is Experiment and its results. If the Experiment can be performed multiple times and the results are always the same, then we deal with Objective Reality. As it was explained in the previous posts, inability to accept Objective Reality is only Subjective property of the Observer, and this denial does not change Objective Reality anyhow - the example given was with the truck, and this was also Experiment, which can be repeated multiple times provided the immediate result is not fatal.


Again, performing experiments gives us evidence, not proof. We have lots of subjective evidence that one answer is more likely, perhaps almost exclusively so, however, almost does not prove objective reality. Science only amasses evidence. Evidence only establishes likelyhood. The information from any experiment also must be interpreted. All you have done is show you believe that objective reality is possible and you assume it exists. These may be logical assumptions, however, they are assumptions still. They are theories about evidence for which there are still other logical theories and explanations. Without eliminating those other theories, you have only created a possibility, not proven your personal belief.


.









#14    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 03 July 2009 - 08:39 PM

marabod on Jul 3 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

In order to measure the objects of Objective Reality we first agree on the measure units we use (currently SI system) and then express the qualities of the objects in these units. "Large" or "small", "light" or "heavy" and generally "how long is a piece of string" has nothing to so with Objective Reality and are purely Subjective. Two hair on a head is not enough, but in the soup its too many.

Taste of food belongs to the senses which we use to observe Reality, this makes this taste Subjective, dependent on Observer - but the food is Objective. Other Observers can also taste it. There is a compound called Sodium Bensoate used to make most of the tablets sold. Official data on it says "tasteless", however the human Observers are divided into 5 groups on this planet - one group indeed takes it as tasteless, another groups as bitter, sweet, sour and salty...


None of this is evidence of anything. You again claim, "The food is opbjective." How so? Is the taste objective? You never said. Who is determining this objectivity? Who observed it?


Quote

And I am suggesting, that if my opponent Subjectively removes themselves from Objective Reality, then such removal must be accompanied by the removal of their Concept of Reality as an Abstract Concept, as it also does not exist Objectively. On this I rest my case.  laugh.gif


I would try that, if only you had proven the existence of objective reality. All you have done is claim that what seems reasonable to you is objective reality.

I did a query that I would suggest anyone interested in this discussion try. I looked for the "Theory of reality". There isn't one. There is absolutely no consensus as to what reality is. Yet, as presented in your posts, it is presented as something that is obvious. If it is obvious, why is there no theory for it? Why is there no consensus regarding it? The reason is because the word itself is misinterpreted. All we know and all we will ever know are how things appear to us. We cannot assume reality exists because it makes sense to us. It is not a theory that has not been tested and proven. You can not seperate subjective reality from objective reality. There is no mechanism. You cannot show that all that exists is not subjective. The only thing we can say for sure about reality is that if we synthesize abstractly by creating an imaginary observer who sees based upon what we believe is objective, we can create a singular static reality in our mind's eye. That is what you have done. That is all that can be done.



.





.

Edited by PerVirtuous, 03 July 2009 - 08:43 PM.


#15    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 03 July 2009 - 09:20 PM

To conclude, I present alternative examples of reality.

Quantum Reality

In the Western world, the leading physicists advocate one or more of the eight forms of quantum reality, with most holding to the Copenhagen Interpretation that There is no deep reality. "The Copenhagen interpretation properly consists of two distinct parts: 1. There is no reality in the absence of observation; 2. Observation creates reality. `You create your own reality....' " As stated by a much honored professor of Quantum Theory, "We now know the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks." This is not merely hyperbole; "Physicists do not put forth these quantum realities as science fiction speculations concerning worlds that might have been, but as serious pictures of the one world we actually live in: the universe outside your door."

http://www.commonsensescience.org/philosophy_of_reality.html



Until somebody proves reality is one way or the other, it is an abstract concept that is ultimately unknown.



.

Edited by PerVirtuous, 03 July 2009 - 09:21 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users