Objectivity and how it can be achieved
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
well if you can think of any other way to perform an experiment in a material sense that comesclose to explaining objectivity I would like to hear of it?
Try to construct an objective reality. It's amazing what you can learn....
It seems to me they have intersubjectivity. I don't see why this is objective. The notion of 'wall' for example as a barrier, as something between as something blocking a view, as something that one avoids, moves around in time are all qualities that are subjective, despite being shared. They have their own subjectivity and a very clear 'view' of another's subjectivity. But then these robots have a culture, they have notions of locality and perception selection editing processes that are not objective.
I am not sure what objective is, but they don't have it.
In relation to each other they can make claims very similar to the way people use objective assertions.
They are not limited by the problem of other minds. But they are limited minds.
I have two brain hemispheres but I am not objective. (not sure that holds, but I thought I'd toss it in the ring. I think you can, essentially consider the two robots one robot)
If you read the abstraction a little bit more you will see that the wall is also confirmng it's location and existance to itself and the robots as well.
There is no exception to the information or awareness loop....
And in the end it is all the same identical information just prioritised differently depending onperspective one wishes to emphasise.
The data flow would me more analoguous with awareness, and any correcting or planning woudl be more akin to thoughtor thinking.
IMO
Which would be like the way the perpections of two eyes are merged in the visual cortex. Again: is there really more than one subject there?
and how does added up subjectivities create objectivity?
and what makes it a culminatioon of subjectivities do you think? How are they subjective?
They are time bound perspectives and, well, perspectives. You've put a few together, but they still are, just like us, bodies in space. They do not have an objective experience of 'the wall', whatever that would be. No more than a dolphin whose sonar would give the dolphin a 3d image of the wall. As if the dolphin could see it from several vantages. They are participant observers and 'see' like we do as bodies in space, with all that entails.
Nope this makes little sense to me....as all robots are sharing the same information stream and that there is no other information available other than what they all share. [ totally inclusive with out exception ] there is no room for subjective experience.
Subjective experience defined:
As an experience that is entirely unique to an individual perspective and that which can not be shared with other perspectives.
In this analogy there is no ability for the robots to form an opinion that is not immediately common and shared although obviously not agreed to given different perspectives [ locations regarding each other and programmed priorities]
So I fail to see how subjectivity is possible in this universe.
Possibly if you define the two terms [objectivity and subjectivity] for your self you may see my point.
For objectivity = c
time does not esixt in the moment that is objective in each moment of each object. It is perfection. It is constant. It is infinite. It is One. It is zero dispalcement. For it is now and forever the begining and end as a whole, with out description or probable variants; For a desription in time is never objective. For a moment in time is always objective c = o
For objectivity is the total perpetual sequence of moments that can never change. It is the end game. No more no less.
O = C
C= S*I
I= infinity
S= subjectivity
O= objectivity
C= speed of c
C= S*I
I= infinity
S= subjectivity
O= objectivity
C= speed of c
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
lol
Is this serious ?
Well I get the impression that theoneiuse is serious, but more seriously deranged.
Look at his/ her/ its post history.
You don't need to go through many to get the general idea.
So their sensory systems are total and without distortion? They have all possible senses? They have all possible perspectives also?
I don't define it that way (only) so that might be part of our problem. To me subjectivity is a given for an experiencer - unless it is some deity - since the experiencer is always coming at things from an incomplete perspective. This time, this place, this kind of body/sensory apparatus. Your system seems to just pluralize the situation. These places, these sensory apparatuses. But this is similar to the difference between a man who can see out of one eye and cannot hear being compared to a man who has two eyes -with all that entails - and can hear. The latter man is not more objective and he is still missing perspectives - that a bat would have, for example - let alone a rhizome like animal with a million eyes, ears and noses all aimed at that wall in your diagram.
Then there is one robot. And it is still subjective. Not in relation to the others, in and of itself. You have not achieved objectivity, it seems to me, but consensus.
We are using them differently, but I think it is very misleading to say the robots are objective. I understand how the robots will 'get along' and not disagree with each other. And no doubt this will seem like objectivity to them, meeting no challenges, but they are not objective in relation to reality. They still have biases, structural distortions in the perception of reality. The disadvantage/advantage they have is no one can call them on it.
Last edited:
apologies for the late response. It appears the thread notification system has let me down again and I assumed there was no interest in the thread.
The point is that all information held by all robots is identicle and if an error exists even for a moment the system corrects it. It is self correcting.
Now we have a number of robots in different co-ordinants and environements and all walls and obstacles, each having identicle therefore objective resources but also a unique perspective [ which is a part of the resource base of all robots, walls and obstacles. let's not forget the ceiling and floor as well hey!]
This can only be described as a universal objectivity as it certainly isn't subjectivity, except from the "creator" of this universe POV
Last edited:
I believe you may be considering their iuique individual perspectives as somehow gaining them a subjective POV. Yet if that unique perspective is a part of the global knowledge base [ which it has to be for the robots to function], how then is it subjective?
As every robot can know the others unique perspective in every detail.
People maybe not, but these robots most likely.
If in the context of our robots where each unique perspective is the sum of all perspectives then yes that thing would be objective. Even if the robots took a peak at some of the data streaming [subconscious analogue] the perception of that data would still be objective, because the sum of that data is what grants the robots their unique persepective of that data.
we esseentially have many robots but yet we have one. One multiplistic robot with many individual unique perspectives [ human analogue to universal consciousness]
You have got to remember that the "thing" is also looking at them and it's info is a part of the data stream making the info feedback loop posible.
Last edited:
All perspectives would mean all possible ways of sensing something. So every possible sensory system that we know of in the animal kingdom + whatever other possible sensory systems that can be formed in this universe. Whatever that would mean. Not simply seeing something from all vantages - which is not possible, at least, I think it isn't, since then the seeing would start affecting that which is seen, especially if it was alive.
Further the robots are time bound, taking in information over periods of time. I can't see why I can assume this is objective.
'Many' does not = universal.
This is just one more perspective.
It is a very interesting set up. And I can see an analogy to I-Thou type formulations, but I can't see it as objective.
There would also, likely, I would think, be feedback loops as the outside portions of this self looking in experienced the inside portions of the self looking out - a kind of two mirrors facing each other effect - which would either lead to too much information or would need to be cut off - and this relationship - sort of analagous to introspection - would also be something the robot would not be able to look at. It could look at the wall part of itself and the robots perceiver parts of itself, but it could not look at the dynamic relation between these parts and so it is missing something. Unless relationships do not exist and objects are separate monads and relations are not at all internal. But then relations would clearly, by definition, be internal to this robot since it is relating to itself.
Again it is an interesting idea, but the assertion that it is objective is distracting. It is something and something interesting and likely even relevent to 'us', but I think it is better to leave that something unnamed.