north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 01:19 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
the foundation is based on the fact that life cannot become anywhere , such as the moon , therefore our planet which is condusive to life had to be here before any form of life could become


Quote:
Some say that life on this planet couldn't have existed without the moon. You are perhaps fooled by locality. There is no way you can say with certainty that a star hundres of lighyears away has no consequence for life on this planet. For all we know, they are directly linked. I do not accept your reasoning as proof of objetive reality.


your argument so far makes no sense

you may not except my proof but it is proof nevertheless

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 04:27 pm
@north,
It does make sense.
You say that the fact that there is no life on the moon is evidence that the planet had to be here before any form of life could become.

This assumes that the traditional view that life evolved from "dead" matter is correct.

But fairly recent scientific inquiry has uncovered indications that this view may not be entirely accurate.

It may in fact be that the physical world only appears as it is within consciousness.
Without it there is nothing. There is merely quantum superposition, potential matter, so to speak. But the superposition doesn't collapse until it is observed, which indicates that some form of observer function is inherent in the universe, and only upon observation does the physical universe come into existence.

According to this view, your objective reality simply doesn't refer to anything. It is a void concept.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 04:56 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?




Scientists uniformly believe that the existence of the Moon antedated all life, and they have no reason to think that the Moon which existed was any different from it is now. So, clearly, they believe that there was a Moon with certain features a long time before the Moon was perceived by people. Around four and a half billion years before, as a matter of fact.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 05:02 pm
@kennethamy,
Quantum Reality
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 05:03 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

It does make sense.
You say that the fact that there is no life on the moon is evidence that the planet had to be here before any form of life could become.

This assumes that the traditional view that life evolved from "dead" matter is correct.

But fairly recent scientific inquiry has uncovered indications that this view may not be entirely accurate.



Quote:
It may in fact be that the physical world only appears as it is within consciousness.


yet for the consciousness to become it needs nutrients and body

the objective reality gives rise to both


Quote:
Without it there is nothing. There is merely quantum superposition, potential matter, so to speak. But the superposition doesn't collapse until it is observed, which indicates that some form of observer function is inherent in the universe, and only upon observation does the physical universe come into existence.


the micro and the macro have different physical characteristics

the micro is the disorder of matter , the macro is the order of matter

Quote:
According to this view, your objective reality simply doesn't refer to anything. It is a void concept.


wrong

as you'll read above
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 05:48 pm
@north,
Quote:
yet for the consciousness to become it needs nutrients and body


You have no evidence of that.
Human consciousness needs nutrients and a body. But "nutrients" and "body" also need consciousness to be anything of the sort.

You seem unable to even consider the possibility that an "objective reality" is merely an idea formed by the fact that every time you look at the ocean you see what you expect to see. Every time. This leads you to conclude that there must be an ocean there regardless of if anyone is observing it.
But there is no evidence to support such a notion. It is impossible that there can be any evidence to support it, simply because of how human perception works.
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 06:25 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
yet for the consciousness to become it needs nutrients and body


Quote:
You have no evidence of that.


I'm talking about the forms that evolved into the essence of Humans , which needed nutrients and body



Quote:
Human consciousness needs nutrients and a body. But "nutrients" and "body" also need consciousness to be anything of the sort.


no , not at all

Quote:
You seem unable to even consider the possibility that an "objective reality" is merely an idea formed by the fact that every time you look at the ocean you see what you expect to see. Every time. This leads you to conclude that there must be an ocean there regardless of if anyone is observing it.
But there is no evidence to support such a notion. It is impossible that there can be any evidence to support it, simply because of how human perception works.


objective reality is not what I expect to see but what it is I see
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 06:50 pm
@north,
Watch the video I postet in the other thread, and get back to me.
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 07:28 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Watch the video I postet in the other thread, and get back to me.


go to the other thread there you will find my answer
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 08:22 pm
@north,
I did, and I did. Thanks.
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 08:30 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I did, and I did. Thanks.


good
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 09:28 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
You seem unable to even consider the possibility that an "objective reality" is merely an idea formed by the fact that every time you look at the ocean you see what you expect to see. Every time. This leads you to conclude that there must be an ocean there regardless of if anyone is observing it.

This is just warmed-over Berkeleyan idealism. Every time I close my refrigerator door I don't expect all of my food to disappear from existence, only to reappear again the next time I open the door. Now, do I know that all of my food doesn't disappear when I close the door? No, but then, based on my experience with food and its tendency not to blink abruptly in and out of existence, I have a reasonable belief that it all doesn't suddenly vanish the moment that I stop looking at it. Similarly, although I'm not currently looking at the Atlantic Ocean, I'm confident that it still exists, based on a general knowledge of how oceans work and the lack of any reports from the Atlantic littoral on the unexpected disappearance of a well-known local body of water.

Cyracuz wrote:
But there is no evidence to support such a notion. It is impossible that there can be any evidence to support it, simply because of how human perception works.

That depends on what you consider to be "evidence."
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 10:08 am
@joefromchicago,
The issue is not whether we operate as though there were " an objective reality"......clearly we all do. But from a philosophical position, the word "objective" is ultimately suspect because psychologists and physicists inform us about the interactions between observer and observed. (For example, we know that frogs in a tank will starve to death when surrounded by dead insects, because their perceptual systems are only activated by moving prey.) The conclusion is that concepts like "objective reality" are tied to, and negotiated within, particular socio-semantic networks and do not represent a consistent or independent epistemological substrate.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 10:22 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

The issue is not whether we operate as though there were " an objective reality"......clearly we all do. But from a philosophical position, the word "objective" is ultimately suspect because psychologists and physicists inform us about the interactions between observer and observed. (For example, we know that frogs in a tank will starve to death when surrounded by dead insects, because their perceptual systems are only activated by moving prey.) The conclusion is that concepts like "objective reality" are tied to, and negotiated within, particular socio-semantic networks and do not represent a consistent or independent epistemological substrate.


...yeah I know that and still it can be conceived the other way around...
even if meaning can vary from subject to subject given the extension of the concept when it does not vary but through the medium- how are we to know with certainty that although the medium can change (in or out the mind or whatever else) the operational function which attributes meaning through different mediums cannot be experienced in the same way for the effect of "objectiveness" ?

...take for instance the graphic bars of a music playing in your mp3 reader that visually as graphic describe its motion process in a different medium yet in an algorithmic similar function...

...or even why not to wonder that that which as what is to be incomplete as concept is less real given is possible to ACTUALLY have "half"-concepts as objects themselves ?
...We should be debating the scope of the meaning of function itself to conclude what is to be objective reality anyway..
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 10:43 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
....how are we to know with certainty...


In a word - we can't ! All "knowledge" is a matter of levels of confidence with respect to prediction and control. Chaos theory indicates that 100% confidence (aka certainty) is a myth.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 10:55 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
What I mean is even if my conception of something today differs from your in regards to something, what makes it less real ? What in fact means the realness of something ?

Its possible to change the medium and even the message body and still keep the very same relational function which makes the very same somethingness which can be conceived through various means and substances...

It can be argued that the true medium, of what is to be, either in and outside the mind is irrelevant...
It can be argued that what is to be out is actually in and that what is in can also be out...it can even be argued that there´s no in or out, but being for whatever is possible as actual...still everything is objective...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 11:04 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
"Differences" are by definition "social differences". This point underlies the postmodernist positions of Rorty, Kuhn et al in rejecting "epistemology" as a being concerned with "an objective reality".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 11:13 am
@fresco,
1 - But what is it to be different ?
...truly different would n´t even be conveyable to anyone in any functional way by any medium...
...say I am blind and can´t see a thing of what is being experienced by my other senses...am I really losing something substantial that cannot be conveyed by other sensory medium ? guess not...so how come there´s no objectivity ?

2 - That All subject conceptualizations, given possible are actual, each with X extension (size) seams to be a fair argument for the objective truthfulness of that which is, if accepted an holistic perspective about potential and operationality for the grounds of true substance...

It maybe true today that my X concept object has a smaller extension then your X concept object, and even a different form, since the size extension of its conception actually changes the algorithmic configuration potential of a set of function to convey a deeper or shallower meaning in it...does that prove that tomorrow, even through other concepts, say Y concept object I am not to experience a similar algorithmic configuration or pattern regarding knowledge ? mediums and substances are not what actually is substantial...is the dynamic who reveals the thing to be obtained !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 11:32 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...and that is all about pattern...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2010 12:11 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

The issue is not whether we operate as though there were " an objective reality"......clearly we all do. But from a philosophical position, the word "objective" is ultimately suspect because psychologists and physicists inform us about the interactions between observer and observed. (For example, we know that frogs in a tank will starve to death when surrounded by dead insects, because their perceptual systems are only activated by moving prey.) The conclusion is that concepts like "objective reality" are tied to, and negotiated within, particular socio-semantic networks and do not represent a consistent or independent epistemological substrate.

Well, if you're saying that objectivity is merely a construct, you're not saying anything new. Everyone already knew that. If that's Cyracuz's point, then I don't understand what all the fuss is about. But then that's something that perhaps Cyracuz can explain.
0 Replies
 
 

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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2021 at 12:24:28