Cyracuz
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 03:30 am
I come across the term "objective reality" every now and again. From what I understand it means "reality described independently of our human perception of it".

Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 12,202 • Replies: 161
No top replies

 
oolongteasup
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 03:45 am
@Cyracuz,
how would i know
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 03:56 am
@oolongteasup,
That's the obvious question.
And if you cannot know, then you cannot really say anything about reality except in relation to a conscious observer.
But then, what is science about?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:02 am
@Cyracuz,
One answer to "what science is" is suggested within Maturana's analysis of language. To understand this you need to take on board that "observers" operate in a consensual domain" requiring no concept of an objective reality.
http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html

See also Von Glasersfeld's interpretation of M's view of "the observer".
http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:53 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?

This was a pretty hot topic in philosophy in the second half of the eighteenth century. George Berkeley, drawing on Cartesian idealism, couldn't figure out how there could be an objective reality if our perceptions of reality were all subjective. Finally, he hit upon the solution: god can perceive everything, so objective reality was whatever god perceived. Kant found this entirely unsatisfactory, so he came up with the notion of the "Ding an sich" ("the thing-in-itself") -- the unknowable reality of the thing that is separate from its subjective representation.

I'm not sure if modern philosophers really care very much about this issue. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the concept of "objective reality" isn't terribly useful: it leads to misunderstandings and lends itself too easily to strawman arguments.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 12:36 pm
@joefromchicago,
To use god as an explanation is just answering the problem with a bigger problem. But I imagine this wasn't so back then...

I agree that objective existence isn't perhaps such a useful concept, but even though it may be generally accepted that empirical observation can never be proven, it seems to me that the implications of this realization remain absent. We still percieve ourselves as originating from a physical world, and seek to explain everything in purely physical terms.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 10:18 pm
@Cyracuz,
I suspect it is neither useful to insist that reality exists only as an objective fact or that reality is only in the subjective experience of people. It's neither and both. John Searle once said something like All is subjective and that's an objective fact.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 10:19 am
@JLNobody,
I think you are right JL. Perhaps reality is best understood as relationship...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 11:15 pm
@Cyracuz,
I think that is what Fresco has been emphasizing--and I agree. The ultimate unity of reality is expressed not in some solid non-dynamic monolithic uniformity. My impression is that its unity is the overall cumulative (?) body of interconnectedness, of relationships. It is simulataneously one and many.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 12:48 pm
@JLNobody,
Yes, that is how I tend to think of it as well. I've sometimes used the word "god" to describe this body of interconnectedness just to get a new spin on familiar concepts.
And writing about reality as relationship did make me think of fresco. I must confess that both fresco and yourself are big influences on my thinking.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:00 am
Those who would relegate this connectedness concept to "the metaphysical" should consider the current shift in the technology of communications which has enabled "non-localized" interaction. No doubt Ph.D. theses are being written as we speak on the import of such developments on the concepts of "the individual" or "the group", both having immediate access to global events thereby inter-relationally altering the course of those "events".
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 11:48 am
@fresco,
I think a good bit of that involves so called massive multimedia online roleplaying games. Virtual worlds where real people meet and form real relationships based on "virtual knowledge".
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 05:45 pm
I do not make the ONTOLOGICAL claim that an absolute, objective world (i.e., a thing in itself) does or does not exist.
I do make the EPISTEMOLOGICAL claim that we cannot (intellectually) "know" reality except in terms of our constructions (our working concepts, categories, models, interpretations, formulaes, paradigms, etc.).
We can only "know" reality in our terms, not "God's".
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 10:51 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I come across the term "objective reality" every now and again. From what I understand it means "reality described independently of our human perception of it".

Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?
Imo it's pure rubbish, there are no other proven reality, there are only 1 reality, everything else seems like skitzo ramblings.

I would categorize this as Kirkegaard's "objective truth", what is truth? Truth is usually very subjective, ignorence and superstitions usually clouds the truth, and takes immense intelligence and knowledge to produce anything resembling truth.
Church stated as truth: Earth is flat, innocent drwons and guilties floats, medical knowledge is herecy ..etc ..etc.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 12:34 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I come across the term "objective reality" every now and again. From what I understand it means "reality described independently of our human perception of it".

Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?

Exactly like what is perceived. Why should its being perceived make a difference to what is perceived any more than its being thought about should make a difference to it?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 12:34 am
@oolongteasup,
oolongteasup wrote:

how would i know


Why wouldn't you? We can know inferentially as well as directly. And we can infer from the fact that perception does not alter what is perceived (at least in the macro-world) that what there is, is the same whether or not perceived. Why would you think that perception does, but thinking about something does not, alter its object?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 12:38 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I suspect it is neither useful to insist that reality exists only as an objective fact or that reality is only in the subjective experience of people. It's neither and both. John Searle once said something like All is subjective and that's an objective fact.


If he said that he was wrong, unless he meant by "subjective" something other than it ordinarily means. (Also, what he said is self-contradictory).
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 01:26 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
If he said that he was wrong


I challenge you to define "wrong" without begging the question of "objective reality".
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 09:30 am
@fresco,
I propose a duel. The winner is right Smile
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 09:49 am
@Cyracuz,
Can a non-dualist duel ? If so, with whom ? Wink
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Objective reality"
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/25/2021 at 09:33:59