Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

Wait.

So Objective reality can't be observed. All observed reality is observed subjectively. But you insist there is an objective reality...

I thought you were an atheist because there is no proof. That's as irrational as claiming God, isn't it? Not only can objective reality not be detected, but we experience a reality that is subjective. That makes it worse, I think. Like running into some being in the universe that looks like a God and Quacks like a God but ain't God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the point I was attempting to make is that :
"Objective reality CAN be observed but not thought [cogitated] about"
The act of thinking about your observation automatically reduces the observation to a subjective state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Think about that. You can observe it and it exists objectively until you think about it.

Why does that make more sense than there simply being no objective reality?

eg. We both see the Sun. We have a concept of that sun that is similar. Hot. Round. Bright.

My sun in my reality inflicts pain and wilts plants. Your sun melts snow and grows plants.

Do we share a reality or not? Inasmuch as my concept and experience are locked away in the same place as my opinions, can I tell if we share one objective sun or each have our own subjective sun?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think therefore I am.

For a thought to exist so must a thinker.

Must not the thinker exist objectively?
If no, then how else does the thinker exist?
By experiencing himself the same way he would an object like a chair?
Which would mean the thinker exists only in the way he believes himself to exist.
A subjective reality existing inside a mind which is itself subjective?
Wouldn't there need to be some sort of object that allows the subjective realities to exist? Because if there's only subjective realities, then how were those realities brought into existance in the first place? Wouldn't it require them to bring themselves into existance? Which would make them, a God?

Sounds more and more like silopsism, heh.

Would appreciate someone to explain to me how it is possible for only subjective realities to exist. Because the only way I see it is this way:

"In a little while you will be alone in shoreless space, to wander its limitless solitudes without friend or comrade forever--for you will remain a thought, the only existent thought, and by your nature inextinguishable, indestructible. But I, your poor servant, have revealed you to yourself and set you free. Dream other dreams, and better!...You perceive, now, that these things are all impossible except in a dream. You perceive that they are pure and puerile insanities, the silly creations of an imagination that is not conscious of its freaks - in a word, that they are a dream, and you the maker of it. The dream-marks are all present; you should have recognized them earlier. It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream - a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought - a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!"

--Satan, from the book "The Mysterious Stranger", by Mark Twain

 

I used to have and still do have a policy if you like:

"To deny the objective truth of your reality is to destroy that reality"
Because even though the meaning of that thought may be considered subjective, the thought itself is true unto yourself. Thus the meaning is also.

What this implies is that essentially everything is objective by nature it is only our minds that believe in subjectivity due to our perceived individual isolation. That isolation is only held as a belief and not necessarilly a truth.

It is true that you are isolated as an individual?

Is it not true that we are all one mind in the inevitable end conclusion?
If we are all one mind but sharing different perspectives then what say you now about subjectivity?
When all it is is basically a different perspective on the SAME thing.
Does having a different perspective mean that it is subjective or simply a unique objectivity?

 

I agree.

If you believe that reality is entirely subjective you have no reason to believe that anything is true. If you have no reason to believe that anything is true, then you have no reason to believe that all reality is subjective in the first place.

 

Hi QQ.

 

yes the arguement is necessarilly circular and when taken to it's absolute we still end up with the "IS" factor. And that is necessarilly true or objective.

Even if it is false it is still a true falacy....true lies ....if you get my drift....

 

I would first have to think we will ever become one mind. I don't profess to know what happens when we die or anything, but one mind? If that's true we should in some way be one mind now, or is it that reality exists objectively, the sad truth however is there is no mind. Mind is an illusion. A lie we tell ourselves to give meaning to the meaningless.

How can there be ONLY subjective realities? All experiences are subjective. Even the perception of having hands or eyes or any senses are subjective. Think about it. Perhaps you are the only "mind" that exists. Perhaps you are very creative and insane. Now you are responsible for all the good or bad in your reality. You indeed are God. The problem is that due to your insanity, you have no way of controlling your thoughts that you are not focused on.

You forgot about the south pacific consciously a few years ago, didn't you? Don't feel bad, it was all in your head.

 

interesting post....hmmmm

 

Is factor?

IS is just a word. For there to be thought there must be a thinker, etc. Bah.

Can you verify you are thinking original thoughts? How do you know they are thoughts at all?

 

I ran a thread a while ago that shows how objective reality can be achieved using androids.

You will note that in the end all androids have a unique objective reality that maintains commonality amongst all of the different perspectives
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89885

 

Name of show one single thought that is in isolation to the reality you exist in and I'll conceed my point. So originality is a dead issue.IMO

 

I once considered that as a possibility and later find out that it is called "solipsism." Check it out, if you haven't already. Oh, by the way, the long Mark Twain quote is a solipsistic one.

Mind you, if you truly believed this beyond all doubt then you would have full control over your reality and be able to literally do anything at a mere thought. However, that existance would be an extremely depressing one. I guess to believe something so strongly like that, to the point where it becomes a truth in your own reality, would require a certain degree of insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome

 

"Is" this true. "Is this right" "Is is is" for infinity. You can't "is" an "Is". Is this pen blue. Is this computer real. Is this this or this. It's just absurd. If you ask me saying "is there a keyboard" "is" kind of like saying that the keyboard "is" and it's just a big great mumble fumble of "is". Is is objective. QQ said "is it unique subjectivity" IMO it's objective because there is no "is", there is nothing of the sort. It's meaningless.

 

Problem. Once I share it, it will then be in your reality as well, which will prevent you from seeing that it was once only in mine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wether or not they are original does not matter. They had to have come from a thinker originally otherwise they would never be. Wether I am that thinker or not is irrelevant.

What else can they be? Unless you are suggesting they don't exist at all. But then how would I experience them? Unless you are suggesting that there is no "I". No "thoughts" and no "I". Then everything is an illusion but I ask, where does that illusion orginate? Or does it not require an originator?

 

I hadn't read the wiki article before on solipsism, but only heard it used as a dirty word... lol

I have to say, based on that, I am a solipsist. Maybe. My picture is of bubbles. Infinite bubbles, and in each is a reality through the eyes of one perceiver. There is no "real" world, nor is there even real interaction. Each man is his own bubble. Experiences are not shared, they only appear to occur at the same time. Any of us may not truly exist, but simply be within the bubble being perceived, perhaps by the bubble itself.

Sort of wondered where that idea fell into things.

 

Same. It appears related to "is" this real that that is is real that is that not real?
ie
Is that not real or is it a reality that is real.
Or.
Is it real that it is not real or is it not real that it is real?
Or it is not real that it is real therefore it is real.
Or something

 

Solipsism requires everything to exist within your own mind. But you say that "any of us may not truly exist." Now if you said that "the only mind I know to exist is my own" and then to reject the existance of all others would be solipsistic.

However, you obviously doubt solipsism a bit, otherwise you would be suffering from solipsism syndrome and if you truly thought I didn't exist you would have no motivation to interact with me.

In the philosophical world solipsism is about as unpopular as nihilism. Not because it's falsified, because it's internally consistent and cannot be disproven, but because it undermines morality and: "Some philosophers hold the viewpoint that solipsism is entirely empty and without content. Like a 'faith' argument, it seems sterile, i.e., allows no further argument, nor can it be falsified."