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

Yes it has. But regarding "been", I think we still have some more constructive work to do, if your stamina's holding out?



Any lurkers out there?



I'm with you so far, as long as we remember that "subjective objects" are just objects that we label 'subjective' as it suits us.



, this doesn't follow from the preceding reasoning, as far as I can tell.







We can use guesswork (inference and extrapolation) to go from probable to absolute/certain? How's that then?



So you propose that we get around a lack of certainty by *assuming* that whatever-it-is is certain? If what we humans have is truly a lack of certainty, without hope of change, I suggest we adopt a more honest attitude and accept 'what is', instead of trying to define 'what ought to be' as certain and true!



Then surely you must be able to demonstrate, to objective standards of proof, the existence of an objective world, in such a way that real humans in the real world can verify its existence and objectivity? If not, then it seems to me you are offering an unjustified assertion as our primary reference....

The real world is our reference, from my pov. I can't prove its objective existence, but I believe it is real on the balance of probabilities. If objectivity and objective reality are anything more (to a human) than an intellectual curiosity, then it ought to be possible to demonstrate and verify them (to a human), yes? Can you?



I disagree: I think our differences are in how we choose to deal with the problem of objectivity!

Until next time!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

That last post seems a bit argumentative; soory about that. Not directly related to our dialogue, here is a fragment of something else I was reading, for work purposes, that seems to convey the spirit I'm trying to express. God(dess), I wish I was a poet, or at least a better writer!

<>

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hiya, not ignoring you, just been off doing stuff and having a break from the heavy thinking
----
'done' as in I think that on several important points of the debate we are starting to retread old ground, and I dunno about you but I find that that way entrenchment lies () and possible loss of . But yes, there are still some issues that would bear further discussion.

"People are compliant: we adapt ourselves to the situation. We are flexible enough to allow our bodies and our actions to fit the circumstances. Animals don't require precise measurements and high accuracy to function"

Well. Where to start.
*some* people .. etc for all the other generalisations within that quote.

But what irks me most is that it takes the appearance of imprecision to be imprecision. This is simply not so.
Animals don't require precise measurements? You'd be a damn hungry shark if that was the case!

Just to pick one bit at random,
"we can only build mechanical devices out of rigid substances like wood or steel. We only build information devices out of binary logic,"

What a veritable metropolis of geriatric shoe makers.

I get the point it is attempting to make, but it is either extrapolating to a ridiculous degree, or simply making it up as it goes along, in order to make that point.

Yes, I agree. That quote isn't directly related to our discussion, and I don't intend to defend it, or even investigate it further. But it seems to share some of the *spirit* of my pov.

I think it's fair to say that what remains of our discussion revolves around objectivity, and our reaction(s) to it. Trying not to repeat too much, I think if we are to hold up objectivity or objective reality as some kind of reference, we ought to be able to verify the very existence of that reference. If we can't, and you know I think we can't, then is it really a suitable reference?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Perhaps we should confirm what we think the terms subjective and objective mean? It's clear we agree *roughly* on their meanings. Nevertheless, some clarification might be in order.

I consider an objective truth to be absolute, certain, and to be independent of who believes in it. In contrast, a subjective truth is dependent on they who believe it, and may not be believed by all. [And even if it *is* believed by all, this doesn't make it true, absolute or certain.]

So 'objective reality', if it exists, exists even if no-one believes in it. And it is certainly and absolutely correct. My argument, as you know, is that this cannot be shown (to humans) to be the case, so objective reality (and other objective concepts) are little more than intellectual curiosities to humans. I do *not* deny the existence of objective reality, I merely note that its existence cannot be demonstrated to objective standards. And if this is so, what's the point?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Fair enough

I don;t think I fully understand what you are getting at.

Do you accept that objective reality exists? Whether or not we can prove it. By this I mean, if we both stand in a car park and look at a car, is there an existence for that car outside of our subjective interpretations of it inside our heads? Does it exist seperate from our perceptions of it?

I *believe*, on the balance of probabilities, that the real world (more or less as I perceive it) exists. I also believe that this cannot be proven to objective standards. This being the case, it would be wrong to assume or assert that this real word has objective status. The evidence available to me does not and cannot demostrate that this is so. If I go beyond that evidence, I am speculating, and you can't prove the existence or correctness of something objective (i.e. absolute, certain and independent of the opinions of any human or humans) by speculation.

So I believe that your car has existence independent of me and my belief that it exists, but I believe I can't prove it, which is why I will not admit to its objective existence.

Does that go some way to answering your questions?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Maybe I didn't answer you very well in my last post. And I'm waiting for a complicated p2p download, so let's try to be a bit clearer:



No. I *believe* it exists, but I know of no proof, and since this is *objectivity* we're talking about.... [If it was anything else, I'd be sure enough. But objectivity is a special case, IMO.]



Probably.



Well ... the only clues I have come from my perceptions of it. But my experience of life leads me to *believe* it has existence outside of me.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hmm, yes, that seems to accord with what I thouht was the case.

Sorry for the delays, RL has been getting a bit hectic (well, my perception of RL has been anyway ) and I'm afraid deep and meaningful convos take a bit more effort than I've been able to give!

I accept that objective reality exists because that is the most likely scenario (note, I don't believe it exists). In fact I'll go further than that. I accept that their exists a reality outside of my own. Unless one goes down the route of doubting that either we have no senses or that they aren't actually reacting to anything (ie generated output with no input), then there must be something for them to report to us and for us to subjectively perceive.

I think that I know various things about that objective reality on the same basis.

Thing is, by definition, objective reality exists whether I want it to or not. Whether I believe in it, think of it, accept it, whatever. The only question in my mind is what it is. And that's what I am trying to find out.

A subjective reality, a reality where we cannot say for definite if something is 'really' there, presupposes a 'there' and a 'reality' for said something to be.

Can you define/describe an environment without objective reality? That's a genuine question because I am having trouble conceiving of it.

I guess it comes down to the concept of enclosure, in a way. If we exist, and other things exist, then there are things outside of us which exist. If I exist and nothing else does, then nothing exists outside of me. Which I guess makes me god in a way, since all reality is subject to my perception and my will. (Note, I don't think I am a god!)
There are things outside of my control. Threfore there exist things outside of me, or at least which are controlled or influenced by things outside of me.
But these entities (for wont of a better word) don;t constantly interact with me. So they arfe not directly outside of me. Therefore there must be something which can be between me and them. What is that something? What is it part of? How does it work? Same questions can be applied to those other entities.

A quick response. I may come back later and add more.



No problem. RL often interferes with the important stuff!



Not quite: Objective reality, *if it exists*, exists whether you or I want it to or not.



If that was so, then you must have an objective refutation of the ever-so-annoying solipsist argument, that the reality you perceive could be (not 'is') a figment of your imagination. I assume you don't have one, since this particular conundrum has annoyed philosophers for millenia...? Annoying it may be, and trivial it may seem, but the solipsist argument is a symptom of our lack of objective perception, without whiuch we cannot verify an objective claim.

I don't doubt (the existence of) my senses, although I know them to be imperfect and non-objective. I assume they are reacting to something, but I can't prove they aren't just making it all up! Although I wish I could - how much easier things would be! - reality is what it is, not what I wish it was. And what it is is something I cannot (objectively) confirm.

<...There are things outside of my control. Therefore there exist things outside of me...>

Your nonconscious mind exists outside your conscious awareness, and outside your (conscious) control. But it doesn't exist outside of you, and it *could* (just possibly) be creating a solipsist reality for you to play with.



Yes! My environment is roughly what I perceive it to be. Yes, my perception is imperfect, and I can't be certain of anything in physical reality, but my experience of life (and that of my many billions of predecessors and peers) indicate that this is highly probable. This is enough, I feel.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Our only real problem is the O-word. We can discuss "reality" or "external reality" without significant disagreement. But as soon as we apply the adjective "objective" to "reality" (or anything else), the rules change.

By saying something is "objective", we assert that it exists, with certainty, as described, independent of anyone's opinion. Once we make an assertion like this, justification becomes necessary. And since our assertion is one of certainty, absoluteness and universality, we need to show *to objective standards* that the asserted claim is certain, absolute and universal.

We already agree that humans are (currently) incapable of this. Thus objectivity is not a usable, practical concept for humans. I can't see a flaw in this reasoning, can you?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Oh I'll give it a go, why not

So to take this back to basics you are pro-solipsism and I don;t exist....I mean I'm agin it.

I guess one of my main problems with solipsism is that it cannot be argued from its own principles, it is not internally consistent. The reason I say this is that it relies on a certainty (at least one) which states that one cannot be certain about the existence of anything else but oneself. It states that it is not possible to perceive objectively. But this is certainty which solipsism tells us cannot be. Therefore solipsism fails by virtue of its own definition.

If the argument were based on solipsist tenets then it would state that it is impossible to tell if one can be certain about anything, including whether or not one can be certain about anything. But that is also a certainty.

And so on ad naseum. The only argument for its existence is an infinitly recursive loop that eventually comes out as a certainty, thus disproving itself.

<...you are pro-solipsism and I don't exist....I mean I'm agin it. >

I'm pro-solipsism just as I'm pro-sunrise. I acknowledge that I can't prove the seemingly real world is not a figment of my imagination. I don't believe that it *is* for a moment, but I certainly () can't prove it one way or the other. Oh, and I believe you exist too!



Solipsism is just a symptom, an example. But I submit your 'refutation' is somewhat contrived! Draw away from the example, which might be a bad one, and let's consider what I said earlier:



Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>Solipsism is just a symptom, an example. But I submit your 'refutation' is
> somewhat contrived!

Not at all. It takes the basic tenet, the foundation of the theory and examines it, and then it examines the theory in light of itself. It is not internally consistent. Therefore it cannot be true (either objectively or subjectively).

Any argument so far put forward against objectivity has, as part of, an argument from certainty. Any argument put forward for objectivity has . as part of it, an argument from certainty.
Therefore, since certainty exists, both in concept and fact, so must objectivity.

Your argument, and question, above require me to implicitly accept the argument and then only quible about the reasoning that comes after it. Now, I'm currently taking the position that the argument is not valid, since the premise, that of solipsism, is not valid. Therefore the reasoning that follows it is inconsequential.

OK, I withdraw all support for, and mention of, solipsism. It is peripheral to my argument. Like I said, it's just a symptom of the underlying cause: that human perception is not objective.

By saying something is "objective", we assert that it exists, with certainty, as described, independent of anyone's opinion. Since our assertion is one of certainty, absoluteness and universality, we need to show *to objective standards* that the asserted claim is certain, absolute and universal.

If we agree humans are incapable of this, as I think we do, then O-based concepts like "objective reality" are useless in practice (to humans), yes?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

- I shouldn't've dismissed this without answering:



I don't dispute the existence of objectivity, or even the *possible* existence of an objective reality. As you know, I think the existence of an objective world is highly probable. My argument is that we can't *verify* an objective claim, and so on....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Howdo, sorry, been being ignorant, nearly got my 2nd guide entry onto the front page (pending status atm!).

Anyway.

Firslty I think I ought to point out that I am not saying that anyone thing is definitively objective, rather I am saying that there is an objective reality within which things exist objectively. Don't think it makes much difference but it is a slightly different meaning to your opening sentance.

But I think the key point you are arguing is the usefullness of objective reality. So I shall take that as apart from the discussion as to whether it can be proven and leave that argument and any conclusions out of this.

Y'see the argument is that regardless of what any individual may think, then if there is objective reality, then it is of the utmost importance. Why you ask if we can't perceive it?
Well, because 1) we may be able to perceive it and 2) Regardless of our perception we certainly can interact with it. Physically, or maybe even mentally.

Lets take one example. If objectively there is no other self aware, intelligent lifeform than humans, be they equal, divine or satanic, do you not think that bit of information is of importance to each and every human?

Or at a more mundane level. If your personal non objective reality does not include, to take an a favoured example, a large artic heading towards you at 60mph, but objectively it is there, do you not consider that something worth knowing?

So you are saying that any one thing ("objective reality") is definitely objective, except then you say there isn't...?



Oh I think I/we *can* perceive it ... with our non-objective perception, that is. However, I'm pretty sure we can't verify its objectivity. For me the stumbling block never changes: as soon as you say "X is objective", I say: prove it (knowing you can't - which is my point). X may be objectively real and correct, but, even if it is, we can't confirm that. So my point remains: there is no point in stating "X is objective"; you might as well say "X is beloved of fairies". You can say either one, but you can't demonstrate that your claim is correct. So why bother? All it can lead to is confusion.



Sadly, if I've failed to perceive it, then I'm in deep trouble. End of story. If you can make it perceptible to me, that would be (very! ) useful. I don't think anything else would help.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I missed how interesting this was, first scan. You're considering the possibility that there is an artic in external reality, but I have somehow failed to perceive it. I know this is a sort of thought experiment, but it does provoke two questions from me:

1. How do *you* know it's there, or are you just defining it to be there as part of your experimental environment?

2. What is your understanding of my perception, that it has failed to recognise the artic that exists in external reality? I.e. what is the nature of my failure of perception?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

currently trying to rescue a rather dead database system so leaving the deeper bits for now;
>1. How do *you* know it's there, or are you just defining it to be
>there as part of your experimental environment?
The latter, that's the point.

>2. What is your understanding of my perception, that it has failed
> to recognise the artic that exists in external reality? I.e. what
> is the nature of my failure of perception?
In specifics, who knows. In general the failure is that the artic is objectivelt real but your perception is not able to necessarily perceive objective reality without some alterations. That alteration in processing being the difference between what you experience of reality and what reality really is.