Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 11:30 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I am suggesting that the subjective-objective dichotomy is useless in understanding what we call "observation". The uselessness of the dichotomy is underscored by understanding that statements like "the frog fails to observe dead insects" are meaningless with respect to a frog's perceptual functioning. The "event" (of the frog starving surrounded by food) is defined by us. Such an "event" may be called "objective" from the point of view of even a single human observer, but from the frog's point of view(subjective according to us) there is "no food". So can we utilise the dichotomy with respect to perceptual functioning ? No ! Not without evoking some sort of meta-observer who can be "independent of events"....thereby begging the question of "an objective reality".


1 - But you are to distinguish "Observation", which amounts to knowing, from Being, which amounts to what is objective itself, meaning, that which is happening...

2 - There is no contradiction between the Frog´s point of view and the Human point of view, since the only possible human point of view upon the hypothetical second order relational event between the Frog´s event and the dead insects event is that there is no established function between the dead insects and the frog´s nourishment...

3 - Again that which is being observed at time X from subject Y does n´t itself have to establish the final set of hypothetical actions between events, but only a specific given length of options that do must exist (be possible) from the standing point of whom is observing in relation to the event...once more a function, which being real, does not alone established all the set of possible real functions, that might orderly contradict each other...namely one in which it is possible to eat the insects, and other in which it is n´t, depending on the agents and their potential operating skills of course...

3.1 - If its is true that from my perspective it is possible to eat the dead insects, it is also true, that from my very same perspective I know with reasonable confidence that the frog cannot eat the dead insects since it cannot detect them...and all that, is still my perspective I´m talking about... not the frog´s perspective in which function X does not even exist as option.

3.2 - One may conclude that the Frog perspective upon the dead prey regards a function which is not objectively possible, since the operator for the given hypothetical function is the frog and not myself, which as the observer am not in charge of establishing it...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 02:37 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Sorry but much of your argument escapes me.

I can deal perhaps only with your first point about the distinction between "observation" and "being". For this I rely on the Maturana reference discussed earlier, which suggests that "observation" always involves "languaging", whereas "being" refers to the autpoietic operation of living systems. In this respect non-languaging frogs do not "observe" at all ! "Dead insects" simply fail to "perturb" their being.

So it is only in the "observer realm" of language users that "reality" exists, but that existence merely indicates that the word "reality" is a token of interrelational exchange assisting the "coupling" of communicators. "Reality" has no ontological status in its own right, hence no "objectivity"per se, indicating merely a "shared subjectivity". Hence, once more the dichotomy breaks down.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 03:09 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Sorry but much of your argument escapes me.

I can deal perhaps only with your first point about the distinction between "observation" and "being". For this I rely on the Maturana reference discussed earlier, which suggests that "observation" always involves "languaging", whereas "being" refers to the autpoietic operation of living systems. In this respect non-languaging frogs do not "observe" at all ! "Dead insects" simply fail to "perturb" their being.

So it is only in the "observer realm" of language users that "reality" exists, but that existence merely indicates that the word "reality" is a token of interrelational exchange assisting the "coupling" of communicators. "Reality" has no ontological status in its own right, hence no "objectivity"per se, indicating merely a "shared subjectivity". Hence, once more the dichotomy breaks down.


1 - I guess on your first remark I was clear:

Quote:
...not the frog´s perspective in which function X does not even exist as option...


I suppose you can understand in the sentence the function X refers to the observing of prey done for the frog...it clearly states it cannot have that function...


2 - When you use the term inter-relational exchange what is being exchanged if according to you there is no measurable objectified anything to be exchanged in the first place ?

amazingly according to you no real thing is being exchanged...meaning a non event is being communicated...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 04:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
3 - Again that which is being observed at time X from subject Y does n´t itself have to establish the final set of hypothetical actions between events, but only a specific given length of options that do must exist (be possible) from the standing point of whom is observing in relation to the event...once more a function, which being real, does not alone established all the set of possible real functions, that might orderly contradict each other...namely one in which it is possible to eat the insects, and other in which it is n´t, depending on the agents and their potential operating skills of course...


Probably this was the part of my argument which was n´t made sufficiently clear for you, lets see if I can improve it...

"that which is being observed at time X from subject Y" in the event, lets say I am the observer, then refers to my perceptional particular competence in which a limited number of functions that I can compute is being established with the event I am observing, resulting in a perceptional meta-phenomena in which X potential (a priori) inter-relations exist in the object/event and myself as primordial common forms of interaction, from the vaster set of potential interactions (functions) that the event/object has in itself, or that I can have in relation to other sets of object/events...

say for instance for the sake of an example that I can´t properly hold water in my hands because that function in particular given the property´s of my hands and the property´s of water cannot be achieved by me...but if the interacting agent has a container, say a cup glass, then such function is already attainable...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 04:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
On point 3, what is being exchanged is (according to Maturana) equivalent to "vibrations" as in the resonance between tuned systems. Commentators have used the co-ordinated activities of the congregation in a church as an extreme illustration of such resonance/structural coupling. The point here is the that theoretically diverse contents of "the minds" of participants are irrelevant with respect to the operation of the joint activity...."consensus" can only be defined in behavioural terms, as understood by the meaningless of the question "when I see green do you see the same colour".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 04:29 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

On point 3, what is being exchanged is (according to Maturana) equivalent to "vibrations" as in the resonance between tuned systems. Commentators have used the co-ordinated activities of the congregation in a church as an extreme illustration of such resonance/structural coupling. The point here is the that theoretically diverse contents of "the minds" of participants are irrelevant with respect to the operation of the joint activity...."consensus" can only be defined in behavioural terms, as understood by the meaningless of the question "when I see green do you see the same colour".


There you have the perfect example the colour question...
...whatever is green, say per se, ( I know you don´t like it) "consensus" is achieved from the possible set of potential light spectrum functions that several agents can observe in common as a group, even if each agent/observer in particular can vary a little bit in the extreme ends of the observed light spectrum of functions that each can see...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 12:44 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
From the ethno-sociologist-meta-observer's point of view,there is no "light spectrum" per se there is an interaction of humans+world such that "colour words" , and the word "spectrum" are useful behavioural co-ordinators for conjoint action. Such an observer would "observe" (=report to his meta colleagues) that this is not the case for non-humans.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 01:08 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
The reason we are not going to agree is simply because your axiom is one of "fundamental truth" and mine is one of a "potentially infinite regress of viewpoints". It about gut feelings, not analysis. Smile
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 07:50 am
@fresco,
OK then we agree to disagree on this one...nevertheless I want to know that I respect your perspectives concerning many other issues...

see you around Fresco ! Wink
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 04:43 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Obrigado.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Nov, 2010 09:22 pm

hmmm

if we could see the whole of the spectrum of light would that help here ?
0 Replies
 
sean ashton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 05:37 am
@Cyracuz,
You could start with looking at the philosophy of Berkeley and Hume, the Philosophical Idealists, who argued that if reality has an existence independent of human perception, it is not one that we can grasp. Berkeley famously denied the existence of matter; Hume denied the existence of causal necessity, ie, the notion that just because reality has unfolded in a certain way up till now, it will continue to do so in the future. More recently, a school known as 'Speculative Realism' has taken on the idea of an independent objective reality, trying to propose models for seeing reality non-anthropically. Contemporary philosophers like Quentin Meillassoux carry the Humean scepticism of causal necessity further, arguing that there is no logical reason to suppose that universal forces such as gravity will continue to prevail just because they have done so so far.

The problem is obviously that the thing called reality will always be perceived through the faculties of the perceiving organism, whose particularity by its very nature prevents it from seeing things 'objectively'. And I guess that takes you into another area altogether: how to define 'objectivity' in a way that's compatible with a single-organism perspective. For more on all this, see the philosophical journals 'Collapse' and also the Ray Brassier's 'Nihil Unbound'.

Now how about some help with my question, which I posted in the sociology section of this site! :

Does anyone know of any observational studies (current or historical) of office behavior in the fields of sociology, behavioural psychology or anthropology? Or any books on the subject?

thanks

sean
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Dec, 2010 09:06 pm
@sean ashton,
sean ashton wrote:
Contemporary philosophers like Quentin Meillassoux carry the Humean scepticism of causal necessity further, arguing that there is no logical reason to suppose that universal forces such as gravity will continue to prevail just because they have done so so far.

I don't see how this is carrying Humean skepticism further. I'm sure Hume would have said the same thing.

sean ashton wrote:
Does anyone know of any observational studies (current or historical) of office behavior in the fields of sociology, behavioural psychology or anthropology? Or any books on the subject?

Sorry, not my area of interest.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Dec, 2010 09:15 pm

" objective reality "

if someone you know passes ( death ) did that passing change the face of the Moon ? , did it change the depth of the sea

NO

can you survive being at the north pole without food , water or clothing

NO

hence objective reality , a reality existence beyond our existence
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 07:53 pm
An idle observastion: while frogs can only eat what is moving, I can only eat what is not moving. How about you?
0 Replies
 
Jiggerj
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 07:55 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?


One human perception is that murder is wrong. Yet, if a sun goes supernova and obliterates all life on the orbiting planets, this is not right or wrong; it's just the way things are. If a pride of lions murder a baby elk, it's not right or wrong; it's just the way things are.

The idea of 'Right or wrong' is nothing more than an idea, a human concept that has no relevance anywhere else in the universe.
Randall Patrick
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2010 08:32 pm
@Jiggerj,
Quote:
One human perception is that murder is wrong. Yet, if a sun goes supernova and obliterates all life on the orbiting planets, this is not right or wrong; it's just the way things are. If a pride of lions murder a baby elk, it's not right or wrong; it's just the way things are.

The idea of 'Right or wrong' is nothing more than an idea, a human concept that has no relevance anywhere else in the universe.


I agree. At least with respect to moral and political values. But some things are clearly more objective than others. For exmple, if someone asks, "did Mary have an abortion?" she either did or she did not. Either/or.

But if someone says, "Mary had an abortion and that is immoral", there is no way that can be demonstrated to be objectively true. Not sans God.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2010 02:34 am
@Randall Patrick,
All "objectivity" implies a "God's eye view", not merely morality.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2010 08:49 pm

let me put it this way

what came first , the objective reality of which life is made , or the Universe ?

if one retraces back to the ability of life to manifest you will find that the Universe is the place of the ability of life to take a foot hold

inotherwords

objective reality is about the ability to understand where thought matters not
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 01:27 am
@north,
Quote:
objective reality is about the ability to understand where thought matters not


No. All concepts of time, life, the universe etc are dependent on thought which is an interactional process mediated by language.
Reality but NOT objective reality is about understanding that !
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 12:35:25