Subjective perspective: The point of view of an entity that is self-aware.
Enough?
Hmm not quite.
That the entity has a point of view suggest there is an objective reality which is imperfectly perceived. This perception is what I call subjective reality.
Subjective perspective is something like a pleonasm to me. 'Subjective', to me, means something like 'relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.'
Perception, thus, always is subjective and distinct from the real thing (objective reality).
In other words subjective reality is dependent on objective reality.
No, it's an axiom. Assuming self -> subjective perspective. If however, you need proof - I think that we have to ask each other what we mean fairly well proves it.
Without objective reality there is no input to result in subjective reality.
They way I see it: Perception(Objective reality) = Subjective reality.
This is a smidge tricky, because subjective perspectives exist and can be proven subjectively, with no requirement for objectivity whatsoever - the whole "you're my hallucination that I can't control" gambit. Of course it seems pretty stupid, but since we have no objective means by which to prove otherwise (given the unknowable status of the objective)... well anyway. So it does not follow directly that your subjective perspective objectively exists. However it would seem that something that seems to be must exist in some medium, so much so in fact that I can see no other sensible alternative, so I presume it to be so, but allow that of course it could be that I'm an idiot.
See above.
Well perspective is also inclusive of the "angle from which you view", angle being both literal and figurative there.
Hmm, ok.. I see. Strictly seen, I agree. But I don't think time and space have any impact on the discussion however.
OMG, you just endorsed intelligent design? Lol. I doubt that's your intention so I'll stop. Again here though, you're trying to project yourself into a perspective that can't have a perspective. If you agree that objective reality is "unknowable", then your line of reasoning here contradicts that.
LOL no..
I put 'designed' between quotes and said that I (unfortunately) had to anthropomorphize objective reality to make the point. (limits of language I guess)
Humans, beings, minds, that kind of "we". Well it would certainly seem that we're part of objective reality, sure. More pertinent to the quote however, we are the part that is subjective... this has a lot of ramifications. This does indeed "separate us" to some extent from "the physical world", which it seems that you're refering to as "objective reality" here. It means "hey, big universe in which I am a single perspective". If we believe the identity, then Self = Self <> [/i]objective reality[/i]. (it's a subset)
Hmm.. we as in "I" or "the Self" is subjective, yes. But I really meant our physical bodies (naturally including all the biochemical processes going on). Think of subjective reality as the image a tv produces. The image itself is nothing more than the result of physical processes.
Well maybe sure. It would seem necessary that it does. In fact it would seem that there could be no subjectivity without an objective medium in which it can exist. Unfortunately though, we - as the subjective - have no recourse (if we're to be honest) but to put it all in terms of "how it seems to us". That we might insist that how it seems to us is how it is... well that's pretending to be god.
Ok, it seems like you are approaching this a bit 'theistically' ? lol
I say that if subjective really exists then objective reality
must exists, or else there wouldn't be any subjective reality. Oh well see all the above stuff
You can do whatever you want. I just don't think you can frame things like that and be truly honest and consistent. Just my opinion of course. Only you could prove it to you.
Yes, but doesn't that apply to every perception ? If you follow that view you can't be sure of anything at all.
Yes, sort of - mostly. I actually suspect that they are part of phyics that is missing though, in that some aspect of the universe allows for them and isn't accounted for by science as we know it. The brain creates conditions under which meaning is generated or accessed, however that works. I think there are properties of this "abstract space" (in which meaning can exist) that come to play in thoughts, emotions, etc... thought could imply that "the brain" isn't the only component of existence that shapes our thoughts, emotions, etc. But I think a brain definately seems to be a required component, in that it creates the conditions for all of that thinking/emotional stuff to happen.
Again, I think you are approaching the concepts of meaning and value as if they are Gods. No offense though, I just see some strong parallels.
I did.
Because I accepted greenburg's correction as to the one exception that makes sense to me. Things are intrinsically meaningful therefore, intrinsically valuable - to things that intrinsically create meaning and value.
That makes no sense to me.. isn't that kind of circular ?
Can you think all of this through and simultaneously avoid the temptation to "put yourself in god's position", as you do when you make claims as to "how objective reality sees things"? I'm not sure I can, but I'm trying.
I take you are not a theist, so I don't see why you would say "put yourself in god's position" ? Most of these claim of me are attempts to explain how I see it. It's my conviction that objective reality cannot be described, therefor it's seems as if I'm "putting myself in God's shoes" as you put it.
Disclaimer: Some of my words might seem 'sharp' None are meant in such a way though. I'm too tired to 'nicefy' my words right now lol
