"Objective reality"

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

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?

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.

yet for the consciousness to become it needs nutrients and body

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

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

I did, and I did. Thanks.

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.

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.

....how are we to know with certainty...

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.