Oh uhm, I thought I responded to this already... oh well
Well thanks for indulging me anyway.
What exactly do you mean with "physical reality" ? It sounds an awful lot like what I mean with objective reality. I will assume it so.
Well I think I've explained that already, so I'll just say that what I think I've identified is a logically necessary spatial dimension of some sort in the gap between what is generally considered objective reality; as you put it "physical reality and objective reality are the same", and the unknowable "objective reality" as I specified the term before. I think of it as "the tao", "objective reality", "what is", and "the thing itself". Each term basically the same and fundamentally unknowable as I believe we've agreed.
1. Consider that "in physical reality" there is no real possiblity of "representation"
> I agree.
Ok, but we know representations exist, as we are currently employing them and experiencing them in many different ways all the time. So this means "physical reality" doesn't quite cover all the bases. Here I think it where many people introduce the notion of "the supernatural", which I think is totally retarded, as there can be no such thing. If it exists, it is part of nature.
Instead, I go on about it as I'm doing now. Seems more sensible to me at least. Either way I won't excuse it, as this is what I am, and what I do. Later, maybe what I do won't be this, but now this is where I am.
2. as it necessarily implies some object to differentiate two objects from one another abstractly
> What objects are you talking about here ? Random ones ? Do you mean general perception ?
Yes any two objects, anything. Just the act of it even. In "physical reality" as I've termed it above, there is no place for ideas (abstracts). They are not physical. They have
meaning. Certaintly we could point to a brain and say "look it's in here stoopid", but exactly "where" in there doesn't cover
the experience (abstraction, conceptualization) of it. Logic is a good example, as it doesn't exist in "objective reality" as it's typically though of. You can't hold it in your hand. It's not the pattern, it's the act of recognizing, embodying the pattern with a portion of "self" that cannot be accounted for in space-time coordinates.
3. necessarily bringing to a model of objective reality the very real abstract component.
> This I don't get.
Hopefully the explanation is hidden in my excessive verbage above.
I will try to 'translate' your words to how I understand them (please correct me):
> 1. In objective reality there is no such thing as subjectivity,
Ok, no. In our model of objective reality, it would behoove us to consider an "abstract element" in addition to the generally accepted "physical reality" (space-time) in order that our model's consistence with what is logical yields higher utility. Subjective reality exists, so it must be part of objective reality (in which everything exists).
> 2. because to differentiate between two objects subjectivity is needed,
As to why we'd introduce the term, sure. But really I was trying to explain what I explained above about the shortfall in the explanation of objective reality offered by "physical reality" as I know it.
> 3. meaning that subjectivity does after all has a place in objective reality.
Yes, but not quite via the route you used. Actually this is basically just an observation in support of the conclusion regarding the status of "physical reality" falling short of reasonably attempting to describe "objective reality".
1. In "physical reality", there are no objects... as objects have been classified abstractly
- I agree.
Cool that helps.
2. implying directly a "space" in which such a phenomenon can occur.
- You will need to clarify that for me.
Okay: IMO for things to exist, there must be medium that allows them to do so. When we have a specific notion like "meaning" or "abstracts" that cannot be sensibly placed into a model, that requires the model to be altered to allow that variable to change in accordance with observation. It needs a "conceptual slot" if you will, in our model. Here, we're modelling concepts themselves as part of "objective reality", so if we're to place them within a model of "objective reality" that has the utility of apparently accurate respresentation, we'd want to ensure there is a "holder" like x, y, z or t that we could use to assign it values. We currently have x, y, z and t but no "a", if you follow. It seems to me that our model must require some capacity for us to consider the very building blocks that allowed us to make a model in the first place. I feel as though I've demonstrated this necessity.
3. This in turn leads us to the inevitable conclusion that "self" (an abstract component), and all that self renders "real" in its processing of experience - is indeed part of reality
- I agree, provided that you mean that subjective reality is real but no part of objective reality.
I think I see where you're coming from, and I see why I think we reach different conclusions. If to you subjective reality and objective reality are mutually exclusive as you seem to put it, then I think I'd agree with you. Instead though I find that subjective reality is necessarily a subset of "objective reality" in terms of the model, meaning that it is indeed part of it... an aspect of it, part of its mechanics.
4. but "reality" consists of something that isn't generally accounted for by "physical reality".
- I agree.
I think this is actually us agreeing on the same point in different terms. *squints* Hmmm. Probably.
I will try to 'translate' your words to how I understand them (please correct me):
> 1. In objective reality there are no objects as defined by man,
I mean that which has not been observed has no name. It's not an object, it's not a rock, it's not purple... not until it's observed. That's not to say that something there doesn't exist, only that it is forever nameless in and of itself - as far as it is possible for me to know, now. Though I name it "a big objective purple rock", that doesn't necessarily mean shit about objective reality, only the way I relate to it (the models that might build in my mind abou tit).
Until it's noticed, it's not an "object", as the concept of "object" has not been applied.
Though my model of objective reality (subjective reality) might be full of objects, they reside in my mind - not outside it.
That's not to say the model isn't of high utility to me.
Fuck I dunno. I think maybe I do this shit because the thoughts are a little euphoric. The more I process the stranger of a semi-hypnotic stupor I experience, just spewing thoughts as they come.
> 3. This means that the 'self' (a subjective concept), and all it renders 'real' in its processing of experience is a subjective reality,
Sure.
> 4. subjective reality is not accounted for in (inserted by wes: our models of) objective reality.
Yes exactly.
This is not what you meant.. surely.
Yeah it is, for whatever that's worth.
Wes I have tried, but in all honesty.. I don't get it
Well sorry if you feel jipped, really. I'm not trying to rip you off I swear. I just spew what seems important and this is what happens.
