Belief/evidence

Your trying to distinguish more and less "real" realities directly implies a "real" reality from which you are drawing your comparisons.

But that is not a concern of mine. I could not careless if reality is the "real" reality as long as it is the real enough reality for my immediate needs. I'm more than happy to correct and adjust as the need becomes apparent.

Absolute certainty is just an excuse philosophers use for never accomplishing anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When you say something like "categorically objectively true" you are making an error of kind. Categorical truths are rational tautologies. Objective truths are statements of fact. The two are not reconcilable. As many a panicked rationalist junky will state, you can't have absolute certainty with a statement of fact like you can with a tautology. This is very scary for some people and they then erroneously conclude you can't have any certainly about statements of fact, despite their ordinary day to day experience of making statements of fact about reality and having reasonable certainty about them.

For absolute certainty you most work with truths that involve rational objects, like math, logic, etc.

For reasonable certainty you have statements of fact which depend on empirical verification and are subject to revision.

Why did they agree? What is the likelyhood of ever having agreement with no touch on an objective reality? How could you even know "they" were "agreeing?"

Objective truths are not matters of proof like might be used in logic or math. They are matter of proof in terms of verification of the claim against reality.

"You are." Is my claim and your verifiable existence an example of an objective proof of that claim.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your belief in your mastery of logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that as interesting as lixlukes ideas have the potential to be, they may actually be SEVERELY wrong, in MANY MANY MANY ways.

For example, here I sit thinking about the rules of thought/knowledge w/e I tried to formulate about 5 years ago. I tried to assess an objective part of our thought which allows us to see our reality in the way it is or should can be seen etc. Foolish I know but it was interesting.

I think lixluke is trying to do something similar, and that hes about as caught in it as I was back then (and in after words still am today).

But no here I sit at this computer, doing what I'm doing typing on this keyboard wondering how it is that something is an objective truth if I am typing it. I know that it is not an objective truth as that is an authority which is as absurd as it is silly. There is no objective reality which tells me that I'm typing on this computer screen, no objective reality no rules which would be obliverated instantiously which have any bearing on my life.

If he would attempt a programing of computer etc that would be interesting but it has no bearing on logic or thought, thought is what tells us that I know that the theory of logical positivitism was profound but that it falls because lixluke cannot provide one relative example of an example of thought. I don't believe I ever have seen him do so and I feel like shit trying to talk about it.

I wish that he would just come clean. Be like he was ages ago before his spurt with the rules of knowledge. Back in the days.

 

i think everyone's just misunderstanding each other

 

I think your full of **** wizard, in that you are actually lixluke.

 

Point taken... I won't use the term "categorical"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But this is only "absolute" in terms of the parameters of the universe in which we reside. We can't say if it holds externally.

"Reasonable certainty" does smack of being oxymoronic?

The point is not how they agree, but the limit of what we can agree on. Due to the subjective nature of observing, imo, we can only conclude on a universally accepted subjective truth... which you may or may not consider equal to "objective truth" for practical purposes... but you can never be certain that it really is.
The same way as we can not know for certain if there is a God that created us and left us to our own devices, unable to interact with us.

But when the verification requires observation which introduces subjectivity... how objective can the verification be?

No. For practical purpose it suffices, sure. But it is not an objective proof. I agree with your claim, and no doubt you do. But objective proof?

 

ugh, people hate me because they think i'm lixluke. maybe i should get a different account

 

It should be made a law that the word "Reality" is the only word which must always be used in parentheses.

 

You know the universe in which I reside seems to be sufficient for my purposes so far. Application in other universes doesn't seem to come up that often.

No less than absolute certainty seems needlessly redundant. But philosophy is often silly that way. Absolute certainty is this silly notion that one can have things so certain as to rule out ever being mistaken. This flies in the face of the tremendous capacity of humans to be mistaken. Reasonable certainty takes things back to the honest truth, I'm as certain as I think I need to be.

They = object reality
agree = consensus about the veracity of certain claims about object maybe object beings using object communications

You are conflating subjective appraisal and possible error with being subjective in and of itself, and inherently being erroneous.

You can be certain enough not to bump into stuff and you can refine your understanding as you go along.

But we can certainly be certain enough that god is just a superstitious myth with neither supporting evidence or merit as a supposition.

Any one particular observation? As good as your ability to observe at that moment. But over time, with the help of others and specialized equipment? Good enough to see and play with individual atoms.

Objective proof is being able to do with objective reality what you say you can do.

 

Which is why I would say your version of "objective truth / reality" starts with an unprovable assumption. Starting with that assumption (which is indeed what we all do, everyday) I would concur with your points... but philosophically there is the possibility that there is a layer of reality behind that on which our existence appears to sit - and this a layer that we can not observe.

Philosophy can indeed be a silly animal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Philosophy and practicality do not often go hand in hand.

They = subjective consensus - otherwise you are arguing for an objective reality based on an appeal to consensus.

But subjective appraisal is all we can base evidence / proof on.
I don't claim objective reality does not exist... I merely consider it unobservable, due to the inherent subjectivity in observation.

Sure - but the brain-in-the-jar would act exactly as you do, and equally be certain enough not to bump into stuff, never realising that the objective reality is that he is but a brain in a jar.

We can not be certain that god does not exist external to our universe and has never interacted with the internal mechanics. But we can not be certain about that which we can not observe... but we can make assumptions (e.g. such a god = irrelevant for day-to-day living) that resolve the unknown sufficiently for us to either ignore it or act on it etc.

But even visual observation of atoms merely reduces the level of subjectivity rather than eliminates it.
And just to clarify, "observation" in this context does not specifically mean visual - but "sensed". Something is observed if it has an effect that acts upon you and is "sensed" in any way.

I disagree. I would say this is merely proof of a "consistent subjectivity".

 

It is rather possible that this thread’s topics may be more clear in the informational concept – see:
arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819
and
arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043
In last link it can be read only first sections in V1 and V5, up to physics model, – last iteration of the model is in the first arXiv link.

Cheers

 

Fair enough. But what if we re-defined this (more accurately IMO) as: "consistent subjectivity subject to public scrutiny"??

And then, if you allowed this, could that not then suffice as being "objective"?

 

Suffice... practically, sure.
But are they philosophically the same?

 

Alas, that's the question I was asking.

Ultimately, the answer requires us to move way back to where all good discussions must begin: semantics. Without establishing definitions for the terms we're going to make use of in an investigation, we're always bound to move in circles.

In any case, not that it's highly relevant here, but my answer would be: yes.

 

But to me the spirit of the objection to objectivity is not really addressed with "consistent subjectivity", nor with the addition you offered. The consistency is hypothetical because all but the subject are in and of themselves hypothetical.

Objectivity is an assumption that circumvents such potential philosophical foibles, no? Hell any semblance of practicality whatsoever seems to practically demand it.

Mind you, I'm generally down for accepting the assumption. I only really argue its contrary when probing the boundaries of logic and well, in the context of this thread and such.

So again, I don't think objectivity can be described as anything but an assumption basically demanded by practicality.

Even in assuming it, like "I'm a component of a 'system' that is not dependent on my existence to function consistently" or something, I don't think objectivity is consistent subjectively. It's apparently at least "similar" in many cases, and dependent upon the required detail in assessing commonality, will vary from 'exactly the same' to 'wildly different' even though the subject of the discussion on subjective takes on objectivity may not have changed (again depending on the detail, as everything is always changing at least at the atomic level, assuming you accept all that. Lol.

 

This is where you are mistaken and we may have difficulty. My understanding of reality doesn't involve versions, though passing descriptions of it can come in versions, and it is based not on assumptions but on observations. In short it is empirical, not rational.

And if pigs had wings...philosophical masturbation about "possibilities" is not persuasive when faced with actualities. Despite extensive searching there is no evidence of this hypothetical layer and so there is no need to be concerned about it.

Which is why I'm a pragmatist.

Only if you are a solipsist and think every one else is just voices in your head.

The fact of consensus is as good a fact of objective reality as any other.

Which luckily keeps proving itself sufficient.

You are conflating possible error from subjective appraisal of objective reality with being unobservable. This is not supportable since you manage to move about effectively. You picture of objective reality may need correction, but it is hardly unobservable.

Actually the brain is in a jar, called the skull. Your "if pigs could fly..." objections are not persuasive compared with actual performance in objective reality. Without actual reasons to suspect an elaborate disseption, there is no reason to think there is merit to the brain in a jar objection.

Actually for things which are actual, but not observable, we have had great success discovering ways to know they are and ferret them out with great certainty.

 

And my response is to ask you to prove that what you observe really is objective reality. If you can not do so you are working on the assumption that it is.
That everything else works when based on this assumption is not proof of the truth of the assumption.

That there is no evidence of the hypothetical is not evidence of non-existence.
Should we live our lives as though it does exist? No. But this does not mean it isn't there.

I fear you confuse the philosophy with practicality.
Bear in mind that this is a philosophy sub-forum.

Maybe for practical purposes (see above). But consensus is merely an agreed subjectivity. Otherwise you are appealing to consensus as proof of the objective.

I would say that if your view needs correction then it is not a view of the objective but of the subjective.

Again - you are arguing on grounds of practicality - and I don't think many would disagree with you. I certainly don't... I live my life with the same assumption that you do etc. But the philosophical position tries to look behind the assumption.

Absolute certainty?

 

Observations are made, not proved. Syllogisms are proved. Those observations are either of manifestly actual objects which can be shared and agreement arrived at as to their nature, or they are not in which case they are considered subjective.

To wit if I claim to observe a brick and there actually is a brick, it has durability in being its own object and the rest of objective reality is consistent with its actuality. Thus if I drop it on your foot, you don't look at me blankly wondering what I'm pantomiming and I can find the resultant damage in your foot.

Subjective bricks lack this durability as objects in and of themselves. The rest of objective reality fails to conform with their existence.

Fundamentally object reality is an empirical question. Do you see it? Can you use it? It is not directly accessible to rational tools like can you prove it is "really" what it is. Whatever it is, it already is that. Using it shows you grasp it sufficiently for that purpose.

What assumption? I actually see things and actually use them. No assumption required.

Trust me I don't. There is more to philosophy than just rationalism.

Consensus with who? Your hypothesis is self defeating. You can't escape reference to objective reality if you allow consensus.

 

Absolute certainty is just an excuse philosophers use for never accomplishing anything.