Objectivity and how it can be achieved

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,562
    If each "unique" perspective is the sum of all perspectives, then ALL perspectives are the same and none are unique.

    I understand what you mean, though, that each robot is the cause of a unique element of the overall perspective (I think that's what you mean?) but this is still a far cry from being objective.

    For example - how do you know that these robots are all sharing their observations / perspectives, and that they all each have the same - or that some of them aren't being fed information via a totally unrelated cause, or that they're even working?

    As I see it (subjectively), a shared subjectivity is not evidence of objectivity.
    And I'm not sure that it is a workable definition of "objective", either - argument from consensus and all that stuff.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    nice post , thanks Doreen.

    keeping it confined or constrained to the robot system for the moment.
    each individual perspective is merely another input device, a receptor for information about what the unique spacial co-ordinate is experiencing. Suffice to say that that information is not impacting on the environment and is purely informational input to the global resource base.

    However it is this unique perspective that the robot is primarily interested in [ like humans ] the rest of his resource base [ global] is only there to tell him about his environment beyond that which he can determine directly for himself. [ human empathy/ intuition, instinct ]
    At this stage the robot places no speculation or creativity upon his information and purely acts only on what he has been given by his receptors [consciousness] and global resource base [subconscious influences].
    So in this sense the robots each have individuality yet supported with a global resource and as the perspectives unique data is passively added to the global resource and is confirmed by that global resource in the feedback loop the data is in effect true to that environment thus objectively available to all robots, with out them necessarily realizing it as objective.
    So robot A knows exactly what robot B is experiencing at a "subconscious level" and visa versa with robot B concerning robot A.

    Robot A then knows that what he experienced can be if circumstances allowed it to be experienced by any other robot as exactly the same as if that robot was "in it's shoes" so to speak. A red wall is a red wall for all robots for example even though they may not be directly able to "see" it.

    So if a tree falls in a forest for one robot it falls also for all robots even though they may not be able to directly perceive it as such. Thus "objectively" the tree has fallen.

    Effectively regardless of moment all robots are seeing the same thing with the use of an individuals receptors . The only difference is that they are not "conscious" of what they are actually seeing through the receptors of the robot in question. I might add the environment is also seeing the same thing through the robots receptors thus we have universal subconsciousness of the same thing except that it is conscious for our robot and subconscious for everything else.
    If this is not objectivity then what is it?

    am still considering the above ....sorry for the delay..
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    The system is a "reflective feedback system" in that it is self correcting and entirely self justifying. So from our God perspective yet it is merely an illusion of objectivity yet from the robots perspetive it is what it is and nothing more. [ as the God perspective is not part of the system and aloof to it]

    Consensus is a little different to actual.....[ there is no need for consensus - agreement ]
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    But that assumes there is an "actual"; which is precisely what you're trying to establish..... ergo, fallacious...
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    If in a universe shared by all perspectives all recieve the identicle information via one perspective would you consider this to be consensus or actual?
    Given that that information is all there is [ nothing else beyond that information is existant to those robots ]
    the point of distinction may be that all robots can not only agree on the information they can actually receive that information as if being the perceiver. Therefore there could be both conscensus and actuality.
    One could argue, "Do the walls exist as anything other than information?"
    when taken to the extreme no would be the only answer however all robots would record the obstacle as directly stopping them from moving, for example , [ can not penetrate the wall ] and learn the exact same rules about those walls this still doesn't remove the fact that the wall is mere information. In absolutuum information is all there is. The questions are though:

    1] Is that information objective if it is identicle for every robot?

    2] Is that information "actual" information or only that derived by consensus?

    Also if there is no need for agreement on the information as it is self evident what then is it, surely not consensus?
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    If no need exists for consensus then what is it?
     
  10. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I personally want to know how objectivity can be cured.:crazy:
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    uhm...escapism...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Whatever collective output conclusion robots can come up with is purely subjective. The title of this thread is no different from the question about how enlightenment can be acheived. To transcend our congnitive limitations, and acheive a state of complete oneness with everything.

    Do lots of advanced mathematical equations, meditate alot, pray to Jesus, attain some sort of conciousness of everything in totality being the self.


    As for your robot scenario. Other than telepathic communication, it's absolutely no different from what humans do. Because we don't use telepathy, we have discussions on forums. We all exist in independence of one another. You don't need any infinite amount of walls. This independence in itself is the wall. The fact that we can't communicate through telepathy. Furthermore, just like your robots, we're all equipped with the same sensory equipment as one another, and the same protocol for information analysis as one another.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    no but I woud suggest that we are all entangled as in "quantum entanglement" as is the entire universe. [ evidence is yet to be presented of course.] call that telepathy if you like eh... what ever!
    so your statement is based on ignorance of how the universe functions and not based on knowledge. Find the knowledge before making such a claim I would suggest.
    after all if we knew everything about everything we wouldn't need forums like this one...would we... if you wish to believe in your self derived limitations then by all means go for it.

    • If the robots are "entangled" causing an instantaneous information loop does that change anything regarding your opinion?
      ....I think it might.
    • If humans are entangled causing an instantaneous information loop does that change anything regarding your opinion?
    I think the possibility of such may very well do so.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    ahh the Taoist paradox*.. please explain how you can transend to something you already are?
    same retort ...see above..

    based on our collective ignorance as suggested earlier...

    as you probably know with entanglenemnt information can transfer instantaneously however once any attempt to influence the other will cause a "reconfiguration" as opposed to the commonly held belief of out right disconnection, of the entanglement making it ineffectual.
    [aka physical premise for human freewill and it's immutability]
    "a safe with an unlocked door that automatically locks itself upon any attempt to open the door" type paradox.

    According to the world's very limited science/ knowledge/ evidencial support and yet blatantly unture according to actual experience...aka cities, communities, social function and cohesion dare I go on...and most importantly this damn question about objectivity vs subjectivity. When science has it nailed so it states as purely subjective.
    same retort ....see above...

    * re: Poster Wesmorris posted significant understanding ages ago
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  15. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    My statement comes from epistemological fact. Not from theories about how the universe works.

    Furthermore, I never said that 'we' (whomever that is) knew everything about everything. I stated each subject has a subjective experience with everythinge they perceive. Each subject always independently comes to diffent conclusions about propositions that come into their awareness. They can discuss their experiences from one another. Yet the subject doesn't possess an absolute frame of reference of totality. Neither does any robot. Truth is not relative, and not dependent on the conclusions of any subject in any form.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    and those so called epistemological facts would be what?
    subjective or objective?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    And by the way, you are fully entitled to state as you feel you must and hold what ever Belief you feel you need to....IMO... so by all means hold on to your so called Facts
     
  18. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    If they use the information to move it is affecting the environment. It also seems like environment and agents are blurred here. If they gain information they change.

    This sounds interesting, but it was beyond me.

    I would argue that all translation is creative. To go from information about an environment and translating this to gears and hydrolics - or whatever - and how the various robot components will move in the act is creative.

    I am not sure what a robot subconscious is. Not that I am sure what a human one is, but I have more experience of the latter. If we currently, with the technology we now have, had a computer watching for movements - kind of a security system - and it had several cameras whose inputs it recorded and reacted to, what would you do to turn this single computer - with 8 cameras, say - into 2 or more entities with a shared subconscious?

    It is sort of a tanget, but a very good case can be made that walls are not red, that this is a qualia. That 'redness' either is a quality of the viewers experiencing or a dynamic between subject and object. But positing qualities like color 'in' things 'out there' is not objective.

    I keep thinking consensus is more what we have here.

    Let's say someone found this set up that you had actually constructed. You had actually built these robots and given these robots a little space.

    If I introduce a rattlesnake into that environment it will experience things your robots did not. If I introduced a bat other things would be picked up. Some alien spore based life form that can sense the different alignment of molecules - in the plastic wall' for example - yet other things. Then let's toss in some sort of entity that experiences things not from an isolated moment we call now, but experiences the whole history of things 'at once' so to speak.

    I think the robots are still as subjective as we are.

    1) A certain kind of thoroughness, though still a limited one. 2) for the robots it is a kind of consensus.
     
  19. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    What are you talking about? All facts are independent of the subject. Thus they are objective. A subject CANNOT state a fact is objectively false. That is like saying "X is true, but it's false." Just because you don't believe it's not a fact doesn't make it not so. Beleive it or don't believe it, it doesn't change.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    so who's doing the talking? The "facts "or the "person" who thinks he knows it?

    Lix you are only proving the threads topic I might add...
     
  21. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    I believe that the phrases

    X is a fact
    and
    I believe X is true

    mean the same thing to LL.

    Your question is a good one above, in fact I would say it is deeply insightful. However, I believe it will lead to a long and frustrating tangent.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    I have to attend an appointment so I will get to the rest of your post later..

    The above snip raises a good question.
    The environment including all robots, walls etc is a part of a complete holistic information resource. To introduce something that is not linked to the system would cause total chaos I would imagine. A hallucination perhaps that any robot sighting the "snake" would if not shared by other unique perspectives would create a tremendous anomaly in the system.
    Interesting consequences and worth considering..nice one Doreen!
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,214
    agreed but I felt that if Lix knew he was reinforcing the threads contention with his egoistic diatribe of inconsistancy he may reconsider...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010

Share This Page