h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

?????

That very much depends on which question you are referring to?
As far as I can see, there are no questions I have asked with a simple yes or no answer!
(Well, of course there are, but not about objectivity.)
Am I wrong???

I was indeed referring to objectivity

When it comes to objectivity and its existence I like to argue that it really does exist, thus making the question
about objectivity a yes question. An argument for this I have written myself in the forum for objectivity.
Although this was not exactly my main intension with the question. Rather my intension was to discuss objectivity
as a contrast to subjectivity. Does this contrast really exsist, or can objectivity be said to be the sum of several
subjectivties? Can we differentiate between the objectivity of things reacting and those reacted upon?
This is of course related to humans and their feelings, which must be said to be very subjective. Is it then possible
for a being of such a subjective manner to reach an objective conclusion, or even to react objecively?
This might sound like elaborate philosophical gibberish, but still.....................!!!

> When it comes to objectivity and its existence
> I like to argue that it really does exist...

...and I prefer to argue that it doesn't. This is because human senses - the only way we have to observe (or relate to) the 'real' world - are not and can never be objective. Thus belief in objectivity is an act of faith. Objectivity is actually dangerous, in the sense that we tend to think of things in which we have great confidence (the sun will rise tomorrow at dawn) as being objective. They aren't.

The real world is just what we perceive it to be, but this isn't as chaotic as it sounds. There are those who will tell you that subjectivity leads to as many different worlds as there are people, with no common ground. This comes from focussing too much on the details. The world that I see is the same as yours in almost every respect, as long as we don't chase those details too much.

So those things we all have great confidence in - like sunrise at dawn - are probably real, but we can never know if they're objectively true. So put aside your worries and rejoice - the world as seen by human beings contains no absolutes. This leads me to suppose there's always something new and wonderful to discover. Good, eh?


> Rather my intension was to discuss objectivity
> as a contrast to subjectivity. Does this contrast
> really exist [...]?

I would say no, it doesn't. The Ancient Greek philosophers split life, the universe and everything into two parts - subject and object - to help make it all easier to understand. (The subdivision proceeded apace from there.) Thus subjectivity and objectivity are two halves of a whole. There are complementary, and if this is what you mean by a contrast, fair enough.


> [...] Is it then possible for a being of such
> a subjective manner to reach an objective
> conclusion, or even to react objectively?

Rather than ask if it is possible, I would ask what is the point of the question? Ask rather whether such a being can act pragmatically, in such a way as to demonstrate awareness of the world as it is. At least the answers you'll get *might* prove useful or interesting.

Just because the human senses perceive the surrounding world in a highly subjective manner does not mean that the real world is just what we perceive it to be. Of course this leads to a world of no absolutes, but is this really true? Would such a world with no absolutes and no existing reality exist at all?
As I see it such a world would not exist in other forms than as subjective thoughts in human minds. This would, as far as I can see, lead to the conclusion that in order to exist the world is in need of subjective perceiving and logic reasoning. At the same time I would argue that in order to perceive you need the world, or at least a world. You cannot perceive without something to perceive from. Thus what you perceive from must exist no matter if you perceive it or not, and something that exists outside the subjective sensing and feelings of humans cannot be "infected" with this subjectivity and must therefore be objective. Since perceiving includes our subjective sensing it may be true that it is difficult to find an objective truth. But as shown the existing objectivity is a necessity for the act of sensing, even though we don't know what it is.
Our senses lacking abiliy to perceive the real objective reality can thereby in my opinion not be used as an argument for a pure subjective world, and the non-existense of objectivity.

Tmr Mwel (Hi Tmr! ) wrote:

> Just because the human senses perceive the
> surrounding world in a highly subjective
> manner does not mean that the real world
> is just what we perceive it to be.

Agreed. I hope I didn't say that.

> Of course this leads to a world of no
> absolutes, but is this really true?

I haven't got a clue. My point is that we (humans) have no access to objective verification, so we can never know for certain. My inability to confirm (or deny) the existence of absolutes doesn't stop them from existing (or not).

> As I see it such a world would not exist
> in other forms than as subjective thoughts
> in human minds.

Are you confusing my/your perception of the world with the world itself, I wonder?

> This would, as far as I can see, lead to
> the conclusion that in order to exist the
> world is in need of subjective perceiving
> and logic reasoning.

Now that's an interesting perspective. There are those who say that the world can't exist without someone there to perceive it. I'm not necessarily one of those people.

> At the same time I would argue that
> in order to perceive you need the world,
> or at least a world.

I think you *probably* need a world. After all, the solipsist argument (life the universe and everything is a figment of my own imagination) is objectively impregnable, if useless.

> You cannot perceive without something
> to perceive from. Thus what you perceive
> from must exist no matter if you perceive
> it or not, and something that exists outside
> the subjective sensing and feelings of humans
> cannot be "infected" with this subjectivity
> and must therefore be objective. Since
> perceiving includes our subjective sensing it
> may be true that it is difficult to find an
> objective truth. But as shown the existing
> objectivity is a necessity for the act of
> sensing...

I can't see how you've "shown" that this is so. Please explain slowly, for dullards like me.

> ...even though we don't know what it is.
> Our senses lacking abiliy to perceive the
> real objective reality can thereby in my
> opinion not be used as an argument for a
> pure subjective world, and the non-existence
> of objectivity.

I am *not* saying that objectivity doesn't exist, I'm saying that humans are completely incapable of verifying any 'objective' hypothesis. Belief in objectivity, in relative (human) terms, is an act of faith. Just like the existence of God, we can't prove or disprove it.

Nice talking to you, Tmr. I look forward to your response.

Hi again, Pattern-chaser.
It seems that we can agree upon that the world is not necessarily what we perceive it to be, and that this is due to our subjective senses. To a certain degree I also have to agree with you that:
>Belief in objectivity, in relative (human) terms, is an act of faith.
If I'd said otherwise I'd just prove your theory because of my fundamentalist approach towards something I would not be able to prove, which would have to be based in faith. My point is that I do not take a solipsist view of things (and I don't accuse you in doing this either). When I say that objectivity is a necessity for the act of sensing I'm taking a more sociological, and mabye psychological as well, view on things. Sociology say that persons personalities are formed by their surroundings, in what they perceive these surroundings to be. I find this a very reasonable theory, and if a little psychlogy is added we find that our senses in a very subjective manner block things out, consciously as well as unconsciously. This account for the great variety of ways we have of perceiving the world. What I am trying to say (and was trying to say last time as well) is that I find it hard to believe that we are formed by perceived surroundings that does not actually exist. Therefore I'm taking for granted that these surroundings do exist, and if they do I find it hard to believe that (non-thinking) objects are subjective. This because these objects just exist for us to perceive, no matter if we choose to do so or not. Such object cannot easily be formed by others since they do not think, and thereby don't perceive, and therefore what they are doing are to just lie around being objective. If this should be the case objectivity do exist. When it comes to human percepiton I agree it to be subjective, and that this makes it difficult to perceive objectivity. But as long as objectivity really do exist, as I argue it does, I would at least hope it to be possible to verify this. I do not, as of today, have a solution of how to do this (but science do try to find new boarders to cross each day!).
This means that my belief in objectivity leads me to the conclusion that it must be a way to reveal it, even despite our subjective sensing.
This may be faith, but I would not agree that my belief in objectivity is just that.

> Hi again, Pattern-chaser.

Hi Tmr

> It seems that we can agree upon that the world
> is not necessarily what we perceive it to be,
> and that this is due to our subjective senses.

Yup.

> To a certain degree I also have to agree with you that:
>> Belief in objectivity, in relative (human) terms,
>> is an act of faith.

OK.

> Sociology says that persons personalities are
> formed by their surroundings, in what they perceive
> these surroundings to be. I find this a very
> reasonable theory, and if a little psychlogy is
> added we find that our senses in a very subjective
> manner block things out...

And add things in. Our perceptive processes fill in gaps for us - even if the gaps aren't really there.

> ...What I am trying to say (and was trying to say
> last time as well) is that I find it hard to
> believe that we are formed by perceived surroundings
> that does not actually exist. Therefore I'm taking
> for granted that these surroundings do exist

How do you justify this? These surroundings *could* just be artifacts of my sad imagination. I don't think they are, and I know you don't either, but we can't *prove* it. Say it like it is: you *assume* (accept without proof) that these surroundings exist, as do I.

> and if they do I find it hard to believe
> that (non-thinking) objects are subjective.

They aren't; it's our perception of them that's subjective.

> This because these objects just exist for us
> to perceive, no matter if we choose to do so
> or not.

Conjecture, I'm afraid.

> When it comes to human perception I agree it
> to be subjective, and that this makes it
> difficult to perceive objectivity.

Not difficult - impossible. The difference is important.

> But as long as objectivity really do exist,
> as I argue it does,

Then prove it, to objective standards. If you can't, then you must admit the plain and simple truth of my argument: because we cannot verify any objective hypotheses, we cannot prove (or disprove) any aspect of some hypothetical objective world.

> I would at least hope
> it to be possible to verify this

...

> This means that my belief in objectivity
> leads me to the conclusion that it must
> be a way to reveal it, even despite our
> subjective sensing.

The strength of your faith does you credit.

> This may be faith, but I would not agree that
> my belief in objectivity is just that.

Then what else is it? By objective standards, surely you must accept the facts as they are? [Yes, I know I'm being cruel, but this strange and irrational belief in objectivity is deep-seated, and it sometimes takes quite a jolt just to introduce a little bit of doubt into a believer's mind.]

Your world contains absolute certainties; mine contains high-confidence probabilities. In practice, it rarely makes a difference. But when we get into topics like this one, it matters a lot. Build on what you *know*, not what you like to think it ought to be.

Ciao

I strongly disagree that my world contains more absolute certainties than others. What I am saying is that absolute certainties exist in objectivity. But I've also said that perceiving is subjective, and this of course includes my perceiving as well. I do not deny the senses to be subjective.
I still like to justify my belief in the existence of surroundings. Personalities are not static. This means that something causes personalities to change. Unless it is the personality itself that suddenly decides to renew, something influences it. This something is bound to be the surroundings. Of course other personalities can form a surrounding, but even a desolate personality is not static; at least it will react with going crazy. Hence personalities are affected by more than other personalities. Surroundings perceived by (human) senses without themselves being able to perceive must be objective.
If this was not true it would have to be a deity, or some other "higher force", that control the surroundings and/ or the personality. This personality, e.g. God, could not, if objectivity did not exist, be objective, and divine justice would rely on the subjectivity of this deity. Alternatly a personality existing without surroundings that changes both the surroundings and itself will by definition itself be a deity. I would lead this to the extreme of two existing possibilities;
-Either the perceiving personality has objective surroundings, or
- There exist only one divine personality, and nothing else.
I would still argue that if something [objectivity] exist, it must in some way be able to find this. As long as my senses are subjective, I cannot prove objectivity. But then, what is proof? The world was once proven to be flat. Democritus on the other hand "discovered" and described the atoms thousands of years before the actual proof of these lay on the desks of modern scientists. So even though I do not claim to be able to prove the existence of objectivity as such, I still claim it to exist, and the future may find a way to decide if it really does.

> What I am saying is that absolute certainties
> exist in objectivity.

Prove it (according to objective standards).

> I still like to justify my belief in
> the existence of surroundings.

Surely the justification you seek is the real and consistent world that our senses reveal to us? The justification is there, but it is not objective.

> ...Surroundings perceived by (human) senses
> without themselves being able to perceive
> must be objective.

Please think about this a little more. The existence of the 'surroundings' you refer to cannot be objectively verified, can it?

> As long as my senses are subjective,
> I cannot prove objectivity.

More exactly, you can't *verify* the objective truth (validity, existence...) of anything at all.

> But then, what is proof?

Oh, come on! If you can't prove what you want to prove, then try to devalue proof itself.

> So even though I do not claim to be able to
> prove the existence of objectivity as such,
> I still claim it to exist, and the future
> may find a way to decide if it really does.

If you accept the initial assumption that human senses cannot deliver objective perception, as I believe you do, then you know that the definite knowledge you hanker for is forever denied to humankind. You can (and should) assume and believe whatever you like, but stop trying to convince yourself or anyone else that these are anything more than opinions.

It's been fun discussing these things with you, but I don't think we have any farther to go. Thanks for the interlude.

Pattern-chaser

I wouldn't be so absolutist as to say that anything is "forever denied to humankind". Biological computers may in the (close?) future make our senses able to perceive objectivity. In that case this discussion may be decided.
Until then I thank you for an interesting discussion.

As I understand it, subjectivity is the result of preconscious processing of raw sensory data. This processing is outside the awareness and control of the conscious mind.

- Much information is discarded during processing;
there's just too much to cope with otherwise.

- Much information is added too, as our subconscious
minds seek to fill in gaps they believe to be there.

The overall effect is that objective perception is impossible for us.

Tmr wrote:

> Biological computers may in the (close?) future
> make our senses able to perceive objectivity.

I'm not sure whether you intend biological computers to perceive on our behalf [1], or to be implanted within us, to enhance or replace our sensory organs [2], so I'll address both possibilities:

1. If you make a biological computer capable of objective perception, assuming that this can be done, *you* still perceive it using your never-to-be-objective human senses. Nothing is altered.

2. To endow humans with objective perceptions requires their minds (or at least the way they work) to be changed, not their sensory organs. Do this, and the result is no longer human, IMO.

Our subjectivity is not something you can sidestep. It is intrinsic to human perception, and to humanity.

> In that case this discussion may be decided.

Tmr, my friend (I hope I may call you that ), this discussion *is* decided. Objective perception is not possible for humans. You have admitted as much several times, in every case followed by a wish that it was not so. Your emotional attachment to objectivity is certainly strong.

Do you think that life, the universe and everything will one day undergo a radical change, so that what you think *ought* to be, is? Why not accept and enjoy life *as it is*, and move on?

Enjoy your journey ,

Pattern-chaser