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

Ah, I see your point. ... I *think* I can answer it:



Then our perception is still fallible (and still non-objective)!



By use of the scientific method, oddly enough! We have made observations of human perceptive failure; many, many of them. [For example, eye witness testimony in court, leaving aside those circumstances where the witnesses are lying, people give sincere accounts of the same event(s) that contradict one another.] Whether those observations are correct, or the observation itself is a false perception, the outcome is the same: human perception is fallible, and cannot therefore be objective.





I think it may: it's not that there might be something other than our perception which allows us direct access to the real world, it's more that we define our term - "perception" - to describe the means by which we perceive the real world.



Not without knowing it!



It is, and we do it lots, as you say. But we're fooling ourselves. Not because we're wrong in doing so, but because we know that we can't know we're right to do so!

Very, very, very likely is NOT the same as certain.



I don't think so. My argument above shows how we can see that our perception is fallible, and rely on that conclusion. As long as we don't try to quantify exactly when/why/how our perception is fallible, I think we're on pretty safe ground.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"
Then our perception is still fallible"
Actually it would mean that something fundamentally odd was going on since the parts are mutually exclusive. Indeed it is a logical impossibility. Sorry, was playing.

"By use of the scientific method, oddly enough! We have made observations of human perceptive failure; many, many of them."

You sidestep the point. The point is that those studies take a sample size and then apply it universally. You cannot take this step without relying on there being objective reality. Therefore your proof that you can't take objective reality as given, takes as given that there is objective reality.

"Whether those observations are correct, or the observation itself is a false perception, the outcome is the same: human perception is fallible, and cannot therefore be objective."
But you are presenting it as an either/or; a binary decision, when it is no such thing. There is the third option, which is that we don't know. Y'see the point?

"
Not without knowing it!"
Who says I don't? the point is *you* don't know that I haven't, not that *I* don't Your many, many studies don't include me. You don't know that i don;t have objective perception. Therefore you cannot form a conclusive opinion about the universal nature of human perception based on those studies.

"I don't think so."
I do!

"My argument above shows how we can see that our perception is fallible"
No it doesn't. just very very likely that it is

My argument is that we can show that an objective reality is very very very likely, and that we can rely on that and make use of it. But also that we shouldn't close our minds to it being proven wrong at some point. That point hasn't been reached yet.

Since the argument against being able to prove objectivity is based in subjectivity, any such argument must, by its very nature, be subjective. Therefore any such argument can only be subjectively true. Which means it cannot be objectively true. Which means it has no meaning, no truth, outside of the arguers subjective reality. It has no objective truth. Which is what you are trying to give it.

That wasn't my intention. I was thinking of the hypothesis 'human perception is objective' being tested using the scientific method, and found to be false. Of course, as you say, this does not prove that the perception of all humans is not objective.



But we definitely can't say that external reality has objective existence. As I've said several times (), applying the adjective "objective" says that something is certain (and universally true), not merely "very very likely".



A subjective truth can also be objectively true, although it doesn't *have* to be (and very often isn't!). Doesn't that rather collapse your argument?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"But we definitely can't say that external reality has objective existence."
Well, there's two answers to that:
I didn;t say that What I said was that if there is an external reality, then it is by definition objective. And that its existence is very very very likely. Indeed, likely enough for us to accept it as a fundamental axiom thus enabling us to build computers and debate the nature of reality when we should be working

"As I've said several times, applying the adjective "objective" says that something is certain (and universally true), not merely "very very likely". "
But the 'objective' was being applied to the word 'reality' not the word 'exists'.

"A subjective truth can also be objectively true, although it doesn't *have* to be (and very often isn't!). Doesn't that rather collapse your argument?"
Not at all. Rather it highlights the problem of trying to discuss reality, or indeed anything, if one assumes a purely subjective stance.
Is my argument collapsed because your argument might be objectively true? Or is my argument bolstered because it might be objectively true?
Yet again showing that assuming an objective stance is useful, if not essential, to having any understanding of what is going on.

That is: if reality exists, then reality exists! To apply to anything the adjective "objective" is to say that thing is certain, absolute and universally true.



Hmmm: anything certain (100% likely!) is "very very very likely", wouldn't you say?

I'd better ask again: are you happy that the term "objective" carries within its meaning 'certain', 'absolute' and 'universally true'?

<...Therefore any such argument can only be subjectively true. Which means it cannot be objectively true....>

<...Doesn't that rather collapse your argument?>



Your argument was that subjective and objective truths are mutually exclusive. They are not, and *this* was the argument I felt had collapsed, which it has.

<...debate the nature of reality when we should be working>



Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well this is why I asked what you meant by external, since a reality that is external to me is not necessarily objective is it? But being unsullied by perceptual phantoms is kinda the definition of objective reality. And the only way for that to happen is for it to be external to all observers. And that is the sense in which I meant external reality.

Since you ask, the definition of objectivity that I've been using is that it is that reality which exists ouside of the observer. A reality that is not affected by the observer, or indeed any observer.
I find it wuite credible for such a reality to exist but for us to not know it. Therefore, to us, the existence is not certain. In absolute terms though if it exists then yes, its existence is certain and universal. But by your arguments, that we have no ability to perceive it, then we cannot say one way or the other that we know it exists.
But we can behave and act as if it did. And as we can see around us, doing so brings large rewards.

""Hmmm: anything certain (100% likely!) is "very very very likely", wouldn't you say?"
Well no, strictly speaking, because something very very very likely isn't 100% likely is it?

"Your argument was that subjective and objective truths are mutually exclusive. They are not, and *this* was the argument I felt had collapsed, which it has."
Good point, didn't read properly
I think what I was trying to get at was that the same could be applied to any argument you or make.


BTW, I hope you don't mind but I've been chatting with Noggin who has expressed an interest in joining in our friendly little chat. Although I am dubious about having two practiced debaters in the thread with me, I have no objection if you don't? I shall do my best to keep up with you both!

I'll answer the rest tomorrow, but for now:

Noggin, if you're lurking, you're always welcome here, and you don't need an invitation.



I expect Noggin feels the same. I certainly () do!

Let the fun begin!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

We're very much in tune so far.

<...But by your arguments, that we have no ability to perceive it, then we cannot say one way or the other that we know it exists.
But we can behave and act as if it did. And as we can see around us, doing so brings large rewards.>

Oh we can perceive it all right! We just can't verify its objectivity: its certainty and independence of any observer(s). And our practical assumption that external reality exists - when all we actually *know* is that its existence is very likely - is certainly useful and sensible. All I want to do is *not* to refer to external reality as objective, as this is pure speculation on our part.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Aside:





No, but the other way around - the way I put it originally - it *is* true. Which was rather my point.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

far too much work but I can;t let that stand:

No it isn't. Which is exactly my point

Some thing that is certain has no doubt about it, therefore it is not any variation of likely. no amount of very's will ever make the likely certain

It's not even certainly likely (since that has another meaning, in with you are admitting that the likelihood of something is certain, but the something itself is less than certain). It might be totally likely but that just sounds like bad english!

Too much work too, but you can't get any more likely than certain - as in 'certainly true'. [Similarly you can't get any *less* likely than 'certainly false'.]

Likely means probable, and certainty has a probability of 1, as opposed to "0." followed by any number of nines. You make it sound as though certainty somehow transcends probability/likelihood!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well it does.

The spectrum of probability clarifies the relationship between certainty and uncertainty. The values 0 and 1 are the 'fence-posts', and the values in between are the 'fence'. Possible values of probability cover the whole 'fence', including both 'posts'. The 'posts' represent certainties - certainly true and certainly false - and the intermediate values represent uncertainties of various weights.

Certainty is one end-stop of probability, or likelihood, not something distinct from it.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Just as a thought to be going on with - if there'san "external reality" what is it external to? Consciousness? The body? Or some other boundary?

It seems to me that if one follows the solipsist route one has to say consciousness, because the selection of any other boundary already presupposes some trust in the perception of the fact that there are parts of "us" that are external to consciousness.

And we don't "come to believe in" external reality because we think that it makes sense (even though we do think this); rather we believe in it from the outset and then try to say why.

Initially, we trust our perceptions. It's the application of our perception to our perceptual apparatus and its products that tells us otherwise. A bit of a paradox there, perhaps.

Noggin

P-C - even if we were discussing mathematical probability (rather than non-quantifiable likelihood) the fact remains that a 0.9 probability is not a 1.0 probability and equally a 1.0 probability is not a 0.9 probability. To follow your lead into the absolutes of mathematical probability, what I am saying is that 1.0 != 0.9.

Using your original quote that something certain is very very very likely, we could say that something very very very likely is very very likely, and something very likely is quite likely. And something quite likely isn;t that likely. Which would mean that something certain is very unlikely. And i don;t think that is true.

But we digress. Lets get back to reality

"Just as a thought to be going on with - if there'san "external reality" what is it external to? Consciousness? The body? Or some other boundary?"
This is an interesting one. I've been defining it as a reality which exists outside of our ability to perceive.
Which is why I keep asking P-C what he thinks this external reality is external to. Because if it is just external to me and my perception then it could still be a subjective reality.

"...solipsist route one has to say consciousness, because the selection of any other boundary already presupposes some trust in the perception of the fact that there are parts of "us" that are external to consciousness."
But many of the bits of our minds that are heavily involved in perception, and the processing of perception, exist outside of our conscious minds. So taking this definition would make our own perception, and the processes involved in it, part of external reality and thus completely unknowable, in an objective sense, to us. But then that is the solipsist position, that one cannot know anything for certain, which makes for a very boring and predictable argument!

"And we don't "come to believe in" external reality because we think that it makes sense (even though we do think this); rather we believe in it from the outset and then try to say why."
True! I wonder why? I guess it is a fundamental part of processing in the brain since without that assumption it would be pretty redundant to bother with anything else!

Interesting. I wonder what age it all kicks in? Not having kids I can;t say with any certainty but I'm pretty sure that if you told a yopung child that there is no certainty in anything they see or touch or otherwise perceive it would confuse them mightily since, well, they can see it?

N:

I:

I missed the question(s) you "keep asking", but better late than never: I consider "external" (in this context) to mean external to the (human) observer who is speaking/writing. In answer to your question, Noggin, I think external reality is external to 'me'. So it's external to my body and to my mind/consciousness.

What, pray, is a "subjective reality"?

I assume by "a reality which exists outside of our ability to perceive", Ictoan, you're not referring to a 'reality' which is actually beyond our perception? ... Or are you?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ta for the answer P-C,
"In answer to your question, Noggin, I think external reality is external to 'me'. So it's external to my body and to my mind/consciousness."

"What, pray, is a "subjective reality"?"
It's what you are experiencing right now P-C.
BTW, that 'pray' comes across as a little less than fluffy.

"I assume by "a reality which exists outside of our ability to perceive", Ictoan, you're not referring to a 'reality' which is actually beyond our perception? ... Or are you?"
Well it could be, if I were to play the solipsist game

Maybe that was bad wording. It does convey some of the meaning I wished to convey though. But by External Reality I mean objective reality. By which I mean that reality which exists regardless of any observers perception of it.

this is why I was defining external reality since, if we exist in the mind of another being, or withing the program of some computer, then the reality which is external to us is still subjective.

Which brings us back to

""What is a "subjective reality"?""
A subjective reality is a reality that an entity experiences. Put better, it is an individual take on reality with various personal meanings, motifs and symbols overlayed on that which is perceived.
It is therefore quite possible to have layers of subjective reality which each one modifying the last.

for any offence - none intended!



"Objective reality" not only refers to something that exists independent of observers, it also defines that reality to exist in a certain and absolute manner. This is why I keep challenging your use of the term!

On to the next point: what reality is this, that "exists regardless of any observers perception of it"? Do you have proof of its existence, or is it something you are assuming for the purposes of your argument?

<...the reality which is external to us is still subjective>

I assume you mean that this 'reality' is subject to the opinions or perceptions of one or more observers?

As I perceive it, there is only one 'reality', and it's the one that all of us perceive. We can apply labels to it, such as "objective", "subjective", "sticky" or "paedophile", but the labels are ours, and do not affect the existence or nature of the reality we're referring to, yes?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"for any offence - none intended!"
None taken I guess i was overlaying my experience on the term

"it also defines that reality to exist in a certain and absolute manner. This is why I keep challenging your use of the term!"
Yup. Now, all we have to do is prove that it does or doesn't exist in a certain and absolute manner! Neither if which task has yet been acheived.

"As I perceive it, there is only one 'reality', and it's the one that all of us perceive."
OK. Now my problem with that is that the person, to take my earlier example, who perceives themselves to exist in a reality where the surface of the earth is under a mile of water quite clearly perceives a different reality to the one I do.

So how do we deal with this reported difference in perception.

I deal with it by saying that there is objective reality which is the same regardless of who is looking at it.
And there is subjective reality.
Subjective reality is the personal rendering of objective reality.

Thus whilst Paerson A (the underwater chappie) and I clearly exist within the same external reality (we can relate to each other, perceive each other, have have perceptual things in common) our subjective realities are very different because his overlays an 'under water world' layer onto objective reality whilst I don't.

Of course. It could be the otherway around. I could be overlaying a 'not under water world' layer onto objective reality and he isn't.

But eitherway the objective/subjective differentiation explains the differences in personal perception. it explains why some things are purely personal whereas others are very general.


" there is only one 'reality'"
In a way, yes, since subjective realities are 'fake' realities, if you like. It isn't, to use another meaning of the word 'real'.


"We can apply labels to it, such "objective", "subjective", "sticky" or "paedophile", but the labels are ours, and do not affect the existence or nature of the reality we're referring to"
Interesting point. I'd say that labels *can* change how we perceive reality. For example the famous Stanford inmates/warders experiment.
Indeed group membership is another factor that can change subjective reality. This can be seen all around us. Belief can change a persons own reality by quite stagering degrees.