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

Ah, OK. This may not be a wonderful example to pick, then. Although it's difficult (if not impossible) to describe the way(s) in which our perception falls short of objective, I think a 'typical' failure is one where our attention is focussed elsewhere, and something got missed by our pre-conscious processing, and therefore went unnoticed. Since things like artics (and sabre-toothed tigers - very similar in this context! ) are picked up by multiply redundant systems. I suppose it could happen, though.

And yet, I think the example sheds no light at all on my point that objectivity is irrelevant to us (but not necessarily non-existent). We could discuss your example easily, without actually using the O-word at all, if we simply describe our perception as fallible and imperfect. The concept of objectivity is not necessary to discuss or understand your thought experiment.

So we're back to the same point again: what makes you want to use a reference whose very existence you cannot substantiate (to yourself or another human)? How can such a reference be used as a 'reference'?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

And I'm trying to find out why, when I download old firmware to a controller running new firmware, it loses its serial number. Ah, computers!!!!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"I think a 'typical' failure is one where our attention is focussed elsewhere, and something got missed by our pre-conscious processing, and therefore went unnoticed. "
Firstly, never mind bunny-ears round typical, just get rid of the word altogether. There ain't no such thing. However, if you wish to base this argument on an assumption that that is what has happened, then fair enough.
Secondly, the whole area of how attention and so forth works is up for grabs, academically. If I am distracted does that really mean that my eyeball just doesn;t bother detecting some photons? unlikely. So they are processed and some higher level process screens them out. So it is still detected just not necessarily assigned a high 'interrupt level'.
Also, what about conscious ignoring? Our conscious minds have as much an effect on what we perceive as our unconscious ones I'd say. After all, we choose, consciously, which bits of that perceived world to concentrate on.

"Since things like artics (and sabre-toothed tigers - very similar in this context! ) are picked up by multiply redundant systems. I suppose it could happen, though."

I *know* it could happen. How? Well, studies done on people who'se perceptual system are even worse at portraying reality than those of us 'normals' to use a horrid phrase. Those who see people who aren't there, who talk to people who aren't there. People whose reality is a complete distortion of what we would consider real to such a degree that they can only function by constantly telling themselves that what they perceive is not real.
Have a read up on some psychological case histories. What the human mind can do is astonishing. Apart from anything else, the ability to generate a false but consistant reality is, in terms of processing power, quite phenomenal.
Equally there's the blind spot. Now that could be a physical explanation of not including something. We all have a hole in our perception, yet we don;t see it unless we force ourselvs to, and even then we don;t see it directly because our brains mask over it.

"And yet, I think the example sheds no light at all on my point that objectivity is irrelevant to us (but not necessarily non-existent). We could discuss your example easily, without actually using the O-word at all, if we simply describe our perception as fallible and imperfect. The concept of objectivity is not necessary to discuss or understand your thought experiment."
Please excuse me an expression of surprise. "What?"
Of course objectivity means something there. It is the contrast.
if there is no objective reality then there is nothing for our perception to be imperfect or fallible about.
Indeed if there is no objective reality then there is nothing for our senses to perceive. All there is is my reality and your reality, with no external reality to compare to it.
If you reality sees a huge spiked pit just in front of me, by mine does not, and there is no objective reality, will I fall in the pit or not? If I do, how will I perceive it since it only exists in your reality? If I don't, how will you perceive it since my actions are inconsistant with your reality?
And how, if there is no common external reality, can my reality ever attain any degree of correlation yours except by coincidence?

"Ah, computers"
yeah bl**dy things!
come the revolution...

You're quite right, of course. A failure of human perception *could* have almost any cause. I needed to check how you understand it: in a similar conversation some time ago, Blatherskite the Mugwump had (IIRC) the impression that a misperception might be as simple as the misreading of a measurement, and that (therefore) a large number of observations, averaged out, could effectively correct for our non-objective perception. Clearly we agree that things ain't that simple.



I suspect our conscious minds have virtually no effect on what we perceive, except, as you say, that our attention is directed exclusively (I think) by our conscious minds. The act/process of perception is entirely non-conscious: the perception is delivered, fully-formed (as it were) to our conscious minds. Of course, we can then consciously do stuff *with* that perception....

P-C:

Ictoan:

No: this is my point. We both believe in an external reality; we both *believe* it has objective reality, and we both believe () that its objectivity can't be verified by a human. Based on the latter, I am satisfied with my estimate that external reality very probably exists, and is roughly what my perception shows it to be. You go farther, and (beyond all available evidence) assert the *objective* existence of external reality. As long as I have this summary aright, this is our difference, yes?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

But not beyond available reason

In what way can external reality not be objective? The only possible way for external reality to not be objective is for us to exist within the mind (virtual world) of *something*. In which case we aren't real.

I see it like this.

1) There is no objective reality. In which case my questions at the end of my last post need answers!

2) There is objective reality but we cannot perceive it or detect it in anyway (directly that is).

3) There is objective reality and can perceive it directly in some manner.

2a) There is (probably) objective reality, we can perceive it, but we cannot confirm its objective status.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

1. Our world models map well to external reality, but don't match its actual nature. [I.e. our world models serve well and work as a metaphor, but don't match the actual nature of external reality.]

2. The external reality we perceive is actually a construct of our own imaginations (or even from some other source).

3. External reality itself contains uncertainties and inconsistencies.

4. ...

[Remembering that something 'objective' is: certain, absolute and not subject to even the slightest doubt.]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Remembering that something 'objective' is: certain, absolute and not subject to even the slightest doubt"
No, that isn't true. Something 'objective' is explicitly not affected by your doubt. It is there whether you want it to be or not.
The concept of objectivity is that it is independant of your perception/thought.

"2.The external reality we perceive is actually a construct of our own imaginations (or even from some other source).
3.External reality itself contains uncertainties and inconsistencies."

OK, then the answers to the below are?
"If your reality sees a huge spiked pit just in front of me, but mine does not, and there is no objective reality, will I fall in the pit or not? If I do, how will I perceive it since it only exists in your reality? If I don't, how will you perceive it since my actions are inconsistant with your reality?
And how, if there is no common external reality, can my reality ever attain any degree of correlation yours except by coincidence?"

P-C:

I:

I think it is:



As I said: "not subject to even the slightest doubt".



If it *is* objective, not merely claimed to be so, yes, I agree.



Yes, but I haven't contradicted this in any way, have I?



I believe there *is* objective reality, but I know of no proof for this that can be examined and verified by a human. However, if, as you say, there is no objective reality, the answer to your question is: in absolute terms, it doesn't matter, since the situation you describe has no real existence. To me (as described), you will fall into the pit. To you, since the whole situation is a fantasy, it is unclear whether you will fall into the pit or not.



See above.



Again, the answer must be indeterminate. I may see you fall, even though you do not perceive yourself to fall, or I may not.



Now you've changed the words: you said there's no objective reality - which has the same effect on our discussion as dividing everything by zero! - now you're saying there's no reality that you and I share. Given your preconditions, the answer has to be no. Your 'reality' and mine can never conincide except by chance.

Please don't think I have ever denied the possibility or actual existence of objective reality. I haven't. I believe it exists. I can't prove it (and neither can you! ). If you/I can't prove or verify the existence of something whose essential qualities include its absolute and certain existence (and so far beyond doubt that it's explicitly immune to doubt! ), what use is that something? None at all.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

If you ask me "is there an objective reality?", my answer is severely constrained. I cannot say yes, because I have no proof. Equally, I can't say no, because I have no proof. And I can't say "probably", because I would then be saying that the existence of this claimed objective reality is "probably certain", which is an oxymoron, like "partly pregnant".

You keep asserting that there *is* an objective reality. If so, please prove it *to objective standards*, or admit you can't prove it, and your assertion is unjustified. [This sounds horribly brutal and discourteous, but I can't find a way to phrase it properly. I beg your forgiveness for this lack of politeness. ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think you misinterpret me. My arguments are based on objective reality being there. I didn't intend to assert as a certainty but rather assert as grounds for an argument.

But to speak as myself for a bit:

My point is that arguments about perceptions don't affect whether objective reality is there or not.
Objective reality, conceptually, can interact with us. Therefore objective reality is of importance to us since it can affect us. If, as you are no doubt shouting at the computer, it exists.

Now, the question then is of whether there is objective reality or not.

If there is then we should be able to infer it from its effects. Such as highly similar integrated personal realities. Such as predictable and repeatable calculations or processes based upon that assumption. Such as repeatable predictable observations.

Now to me, the proof for objective reality, as drawn from logic and inference is enough for me to think that there is objective reality. And to behave as if there is. And to want to find out more about it. Exactly what it consists of, in total, is something I doubt any of us will ever know. But the fact that we use it every day, even every second of every day, is enough for me.

And yes, I am aware that, theoretically speaking, it is entirely possible that we are all computational models in the memory banks of Deep Thought, or perhaps the mind of god(s). We can't get outside our skins as it were. But it's fun to try and argue round that

There is also the lazy man's reasoning, which is taken directly from the lazy man's faith in god(s), which is that if Objective Reality exists then it can affect you. If it doesn;t, it can't. Therefore you may as well act as if it is there on the basis that yhou're safer that way. But I try not to be that lazy in my thinking

But then one of the questions I have about the world in which we find ourselves, and which has not been answered to my satisfaction, is this:

Seems that often in research into fundamental bits of the universe we come up with models that *almost* match what we see. There will be some small mismatch where the model doesn;t quite add up. So a new particle is posited to cover the 'hole' in the theory. Then people start searching for that particle or product or whatever (be it the neutrino, or dark matter or whatever). Eventually they find it and it matches exactly.
Now either that means that our models of reality are incredibly good such that they can show us the bits we haven;t found yet or the particle (or whatever) is only there because we looked for it.
Another interisting little bit of debate which has a blatently obvious answer but cannot be proven directly.

I *know* I misinterpret what you *meant*!



Yes, I know: this is our problem. If only you would confine yourself to saying "external reality", then we would understand one another perfectly. When you attach to your reality the adjective "objective", you state, beyond doubt, beyond your opinion or mine, that this reality has certain and absolute existence. To which my immediate response is: prove it (to objective standards of proof), or withdraw the assertion.



Then why didn't you say "external reality"? As I understand it, anything that has objective existence exists for certain. It is impossible for anything whose existence is objective *not* to exist with certainty.

When you mention "objective reality", you are either referring to the reality we all know, love and live in, and declare its existence to be certain, or you are indulging in a thought experiment, and the reality you refer to is not physical reality, but some kind of mental model.

As you have said several times (if memory serves) you cannot divorce or divide objectivity and certainty. And you have no proof of the objectivity of anything in the real physical universe. So to describe any part (or all) of the real universe as "objective" is to make an unfounded claim that cannot be verified or validated.

The difficulties we are having discussing this only serve to strengthen my argument, I think. When we casually refer to certainty (concerning the physical universe) with words such as "objective", "certain", even "is", we are going beyond all available evidence and making an assertion that is incapable of verification. In practice, if not in theory, such an assertion has no practical use whatever. And the down-side is that, by using such words, and allowing them to shape our thoughts, we confuse and mislead ourselves into believing that certainty (concerning the physical universe) is actually possible for us.

Enough for now.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"As you have said several times (if memory serves) you cannot divorce or divide objectivity and certainty"
Er, no, I think that was you

"If only you would confine yourself to saying "external reality", then we would understand one another perfectly."
Not at all. Is that reality objective or subjective? Does it exist outside of your perception and mine (indeed everyones) or is subject to your (or mine, or even everyones) perception? Even a shared reality can be subjective.

"Then why didn't you say "external reality"?"
Because I was being precise in my meaning.

"To to describe any part (or all) of the real universe as "objective" is to make an unfounded claim that cannot be verified or validated."
But if there is no objective reality there is no objectivity. If there is no objectivity then there can be no assertions, of any type since they all refer to objective reality either directly or implicitly.

"In practice, if not in theory, such an assertion has no practical use whatever."
Except without it there would be no modern world. No enlightenment, no science, no fire, no wheel, etc.

"and the down-side is that, by using such words, and allowing them to shape our thoughts, we confuse and mislead ourselves into believing that certainty (concerning the physical universe) is actually possible for us."
But it is only your opinion that it isn't possible. You keep stating it as fact, yet you know full well it is no such thing.

"As you have said several times (if memory serves) you cannot divorce or divide objectivity and certainty"



Oops! Then: would you agree that certainty is an essential attribute of objectivity?





Neither. Reality is whatever it is. "Objective" and "subjective" concern not reality itself, but your view of it.

P-C:

[P-C: To be properly and completely accurate, the above statement should end "by a human". I apologise for my laxity. ]

Ictoan:

Did I really say that there is no objective reality? No, I didn't. On the contrary, I think there probably is. But I know of no way to prove that to a human. Do you?



Assertions tend to be statements of certainty. If such assertions concern the physical world, they are incapable of validation by a human. This does not make them wrong (or right), it only makes them useless to humans. Within thought experiments, for example, assertions of certainty are valid, and maybe useful too.





Do I understand you to say that science depends on the existence of *objective* reality? We already have science, and all its benefits, but we can't (yet) prove the existence of an *objective* reality to any human. Would science become more or better if we could? It's difficult to see how.

<...we confuse and mislead ourselves into believing that certainty (concerning the physical universe) is actually possible for us.>



No I don't. If you can show that we can be *certain* about any aspect of the physical universe - certain as in absolute, no doubt and objective - then I will happily eat my words. Over to you....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Neither. Reality is whatever it is. "Objective" and "subjective" concern not reality itself, but your view of it."
Not at all. Is there a reality? Is it subjective or objective. I see only the two posibilities. Either reality is subject to the observers perception of it, or it isn't. Very few things do I think of in a binary manner. This is one of them. What other option is there?

"Assertions tend to be statements of certainty."
I'd even go so far as to say that they *are* statements of certainty Although that is a statement of certainty and therefore cannot be of use to us by your reasoning

" If such assertions concern the physical world, they are incapable of validation by a human."
I'm guessing that you include conditional statements of certainty in your 'there is no certainty' statement?

" This does not make them wrong (or right), it only makes them useless to humans."
This is a statement of certainty and therefore not valid by your reasoning.

" Within thought experiments, for example, assertions of certainty are valid, and maybe useful too."
Aha. And how much science that we rely on for our modern world is due to thought experiments? Quite lot. Quantum physics for a start. Gravity for another. Relativity. And gawd knows what else.

"Do I understand you to say that science depends on the existence of *objective* reality?"
Of course it does. In a subjective world there is no predictability or certainty, therefore how could there be any science?

" We already have science, and all its benefits, but we can't (yet) prove the existence of an *objective* reality to any human. Would science become more or better if we could? It's difficult to see how.""
Well. For a start the science we have is an approximation. It explicitly does *not* describe the world around us. It models it. And then describes the model. If we could prove objective reality then science would no longer model reality, it could directly describe it. Wouldn't that be better?

">But it is only your opinion that it isn't possible. You keep stating it
>as fact, yet you know full well it is no such thing.>
No I don't."

Are you saying you don't keep stating it or that you don't know that it isn't possible to state such a thing?

Now we're getting somewhere!

First: I do not deny certainty to all humans under all circumstances, and my denial is not dogma but a reasoned conclusion:

The only access we have to the physical universe is via our perception.
Our perception is known and accepted to be non-objective.
Therefore we cannot accurately recognise or verify the objectivity of anything in the physical universe.

I am happy (for example) to declare that I'm certain I'm enjoying this discussion, despite the frustrations of non-aligned perspectives!

I:
I:

I hope I just answered these misunderstandings?

P-C: <...we confuse and mislead ourselves into believing that certainty (concerning the physical universe) is actually possible for us.>

I:

P-C:

I:

No, I'm saying that I do *not* know full well that it is no such thing. Please explain how certainty (concerning the physical universe) is possible for us.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Now we're getting somewhere!"
Maybe

"The only access we have to the physical universe is via our perception."
The only *direct* access.

"No, I'm saying that I do *not* know full well that it is no such thing. Please explain how certainty (concerning the physical universe) is possible for us."

I thought so. Please tell me how you know, with certainty, that it isn't possible. You don't. You don't know how the senses work in detecting information and portraying it internally. You don't even know if they do detect anything but rather make it up spontaneously. You don't know what processes go on there. So you can't say, with certainty, what is and isn't possible for the system (ie us).

But as I've said, I go for the most likely. And that is that there is an objective reality which we are perceiving subjectively. All the inference points I have mentioned in this thread so far are what guide me to that. And the usefullness of that assumption in our daily lives, as well as in the more extreme ends of human endeavor.

As I understand it, nothing from external reality can reach our minds unless it comes via our perception. I'm not aware of *any* form(s) of access, direct or indirect, which do not involve our perception. Are you?

P-C:

I:

To be certain about anything in the physical universe, one would need objective perception. Without it, we cannot know that our perceptions are accurate, we can't test them, and therefore we can't be certain about anything in the physical universe.

You answered my question with a question, which I've answered. Perhaps you could now answer mine?



True enough. But we do know that those senses play a significant role in our overall perception, that our perception is fallible (we have tested this quite thoroughly), and that when our perception fails us, we can't tell. Do you really dispute that human perception is not objective?



I agree (except that I'd change "objective reality" to "external reality" ). Objectivity probably exists; I know of no reason why it should not. The only drawback is that I cannot (objectively) perceive or validate any objective claim.

So I go with it's-so-probable-I'll-assume-it's-so, as we all do, but I refuse to call this very sensible perspective "certainty" because it isn't. To do so would be knowingly to lie to myself, to go beyond the evidence that exists. And the evidence, if not objectively conclusive, is extremely strong! To go beyond it in this way is to devalue what it is, and wish that it was something better instead. Waste of time, surely?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"To be certain about anything in the physical universe, one would need objective perception. Without it, we cannot know that our perceptions are accurate, we can't test them, and therefore we can't be certain about anything in the physical universe."
OK, but that isn't answering my question. All that does is discuss the issues of objective and subjective perception. What it doesn;t tell me is why you are certain (which you can;t be) that humans can;t have objective perception.

"P-C: "
I have no idea

"As I understand it, nothing from external reality can reach our minds unless it comes via our perception. I'm not aware of *any* form(s) of access, direct or indirect, which do not involve our perception. Are you?"
Nope. But that doesn't mean it isn't possible does it? And it doesn;t mean that our perception isn't capable of objective perception.
And if it is possible, which it may be, then you can't say it is impossible.

"But we do know that those senses play a significant role in our overall perception, that our perception is fallible (we have tested this quite thoroughly), and that when our perception fails us, we can't tell. Do you really dispute that human perception is not objective?"
But is it only our perception that our perception is fallible. What if that perception is incorrect? Equally, no one has ever tested my perceptual skills. I might be capable of objective perception. Again, it's possible.

"I agree (except that I'd change "objective reality" to "external reality" )"
Same thing. External reality is, by definition, objective reality. the two phrases are exactly equal. Unless, of course, you are merely talking about reality that is external to humans only. Or to you only?

"I refuse to call this very sensible perspective "certainty" because it isn't."
Very true!

"And the evidence, if not objectively conclusive, is extremely strong!"
True again!

"wish that it was something better instead. Waste of time, surely?"
Except it isn't because to treat it as if it were certainty is very useful. The opposite, to treat it as if it were subject to random variations of unpredictable nature would mean junking every technological advance from the stick onwards since we could not be sure it would ever work in the same way twice. Yet we do assume this. And it works. It isn't wishing at all. It is the sensible use of the information available. And that information would point to there being objective reality. If we ever find evidence to the contrary then fair enough. But until then...


But to go to the heart of it:
"But we do know that those senses play a significant role in our overall perception, that our perception is fallible (we have tested this quite thoroughly), and that when our perception fails us, we can't tell."

This is where your argument is weak. This statement makes an appeal to objectivity. It states that this is so,universally, for humans. That statement CANNOT be made without there being objective reality. You cannot have certainty (your previous example was of subjective opinion within your own subjective world and thus not relevant) without objectivity, which is the reverse of your argument above.
Therefore, in order for you to make the argument that objective reality is of no use, you have to rely on objective reality existing and then make use of it! Hence the problem.