Objectivity and how it can be achieved

eeek.

Well, Personal Identity (PI) brings out an entirely different problem into the mix. Personally, I think to bring it in here would further complicate issues but, suffice it to say for now that firstly, PI goes far beyond the scope of what you're looking at here, i.e. pure perception and secondly, PI involves a reflexive element (that simple perception may not).

Not quite, but that's the gist: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/

Putnam (via Descartes) formulated this waaay before the flick.

Not so much in the ontological sense (the Monism you mention..) as opposed to the methodological sense: Descartes' skeptical method ultimately leads one to a solipsistic position (epistemologically speaking).

Aaah.. but what's to say we do anything different??

See above.

I was referring more to the simple limitations placed upon us do to the very nature of knowledge itself. Take the ego out of the situation (hypothetically..) and we still have data-receivers who will have greater confidence in their data, than in any others'. In this case, the problem lies in communication. Aside from the nature of the data (knowledge) in question, the problem is really just a pragmatic one.

Hmmm.
Depends on what you mean by self-justifying. Given that there are two distinct parties involved, that would seem to contradict. However, assuming perfect communication, we still have the possibility of error: can both robots effectively identify illusory data?

Warning: tangent:

Even then, if self-justification was established, wouldn't this then lead to a confirmed error-proof perception of 'Objective'? And if so (here's the kicker..) this then would replace any purported notion of 'independent objective ontological reality' (IOOR), and so, of what use then would this 'IOOR' be?
You've then replaced one elusive beast with a methodological facsimile...

(but then again, I don't believe that the IOOR you're seeking really exists beyond its strict semantic sense..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

It seems to me that if you want to establish this IOOR, what you're really seeking is 'mutual-justification', where all parties can agree, and without error.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Glaucon,
I'll get to the rest of your post in a minute but this I had to address first.

Exactly!

This is exactly how I see what some would consider to be the illusion of what existence is.
A self justifying reality that if you manage to step out of and look back you will see it as a subjective illusion that self justifies for it's participants as being essentially objective. A sort of Cline bottle that allows convoluted self justifications.
Of course we cannot physically step out of this universe but we can, and this is the amazing thing about the human mind, step out using our imaginations.

People [ philosophers ] often complain that the fact that the universe is an illusion of reality then it must be in some way inferior to a real reality which of course is absurd because even a real reality would invariably present a similar illusion.

One of the reasons behind going to the trouble of generating this robot analogy was to help in the understanding that the reality of the universe both in terms of Physics [ laws ] and mind is an illusion that is self correcting and self justifying...thus self evident truth or knowledge can and is available to provide a backdrop to our musings and machinations. [ knowing that that self evident truth and knowledge is really a self justifying self correcting illusion]

Due to the confirmation feedback system that the robot analogy offers this self correction and self justifying is automatically occurring through out the system so that at anytime if an error occurs in the comparison of data the data is automatically corrected by the robots out puts thus the whole system becomes unfalsifiable and self correcting... [ thus the robots can not step outside their environment as we humans can]

Also the robots would never know escapism nor fantasy nor imagination as this would add a surreality to their reality of existence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

correcto mundo!

it is the belief in independance that is the illusion, in a nut shell.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my innitial thought after reading this is to suggest that the
"evil genius is looking at himself and doesn't realise he is"

 

Gambit claim:
So I have shown that objectivity is available using robots, receptors and an appropriate environment.
It is true that it is a self created objective reality however from a robots perspective it knows no other.

Looking in from outside the system we can see that it is a like a "floating truth" that is relative to all participants. As the truth of their objectivity floats according to the self correcting and self justification that is performed.
In physics this can be equated with universal expansion where by the universe is expanding in dimension yet to all observers it appears to be the same.

Or alternatively in an oblique fashion Special relativity demonstrates similar with relative velocity traveling observers experiencing different time and distance measurements with out realizing it and can only find out from another observers data and not their own.

As far as an observer traveling at Velocity is concerned his universe stays the same dimension regardless of his velocity, yet when compared to other velocity traveling Observers it appears his universe is by far more complex than is observed.

So has this analogy using the robots been useful ?

Is it worth pursuing as a philosophical argument for the existence of objective reality and truth?

Is there a better analogy available? Is there a better way to help explain the notion of self evident truth, objectivity, and later how subjectivity enters the scenario?

 

I think a problem, continuing the argument about "how many" robots there are, and if they are different robots or two parts of the same robot, is the model doesn't describe any independent observations. There are two (or more) robots that all do the same thing. You could put two 'connected', physically identical robots into two independent environments, or put two 'independent' non-identical robots in the same environment, maybe.

Independent observation is the key, methinks. (but what do I know?)

 

Fair comment.

As shown in the diagrams we see a number of robots [nine shown in the last diagram] that are stationary with various obstacles between them and they them selves being an obstacle to the others freedom of movement.

What if we give each robot separate tasks to complete in various time frames each requiring different amounts of energy and support of the other robots.
After a small amount of time each robots experience [ memories ] would show very different perspectives and contexts yet they still exist in a self contained objective reality. Each robot has access to but not necessarilly the interest in each other robots experience, but only the robots that it impacts with and those that impact on it directly in performing it's predefined tasks.

The reason there is no external observer installed is that in a complete selfcontained system this would be impossible except by speculation and imagination. [or alternativley a Robot that could take the role of over sight or GOD in the classical use of the metaphor] However even this GOD robot is not outside the system and can not be the creator of this system as we can

At this stage of the description of objective reality we the reader, have taken the role of subjective creators and are external to the system. However in reality this is not possible except maybe if the robots develop subjective states as part of their advanced programming yet to be installed.

The whole point of the description so far is to show that an objective reality can be created for it's participants and as far as the robots are concerned there is no other reality but the one they exist in. no alternative views or universe.
Also each robot can be given unique personality traits and character traits and abilities, again all fully access able by the other robots IF they have the ability to access the data and the desire to do so.

Thus we have constructed INTUITION and INSTINCTIVE and SUB-CONSCIOUS behaviours, untill the robots access aspects of the data flow and makes that data flow conscious knowledge.
Again this would depend on whether the robots are give the abillity and to waht extent that ability is to access the background objective data stream.

 

So we have, or I have, subjectively created objectivity... which leads to another point, that being we as humans do this all the time. We use the objective and subjective realities around us and create objective changes to that reality.
Like designing a house and then building it.
The speculative design is subjective until firmed up and blue printed but the physical construction of the house is as objective as the robots are.

 

What no takers?
Any one want to dispute the notion? After all this is earth shattering philosophy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree.

What I have difficulties with is the general outcome of such a test.
It may or may not even be a test but a general predicament of world. Then again I have no real sayso and no real reason why I should go and take apart such

Consider though that it is actually safe? What is the purpose?

Glaucon brought up personal identity.
It seems dangerous.

Then again with identity and such things like that you would think that it's all regulated and safe right?

 

Has it been tried before? I don't know anything about it it seems

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What is the difference between this scenario and say. . . me and my friend sat on either side of the wall, each with a laptop and constantly telling one an other our experience through messaging via the laptops?

Also, aren't the robots just reaching a consensus on the similar properties of each of their own subjetive realities? Like if I showed my friend a T-shirt and we both agree that it's blue.

 

I think the ultimate problem with this experiment is that while the robots may know something of an objective reality we would still have to question our own experience of the robot and of the robots data.

 

exactly! We would as being observers outside their reality consider their reality to be an illusion yet to the robots the reality is objective.
any ways if you wish to contribute to that thread feel free to do so

 

Seems dangerous.:shrug:

 

What seems so dangerous about it is that despite how ever it works out it just turns someone into an experiment. Makes them so to speak, an experiment, a test, something that would have to have consent right...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*sigh*

 

You perhaps wouldn't even call it an experiment as much as you would call it an idea or theory.... Hmm

 

it is what it is. A way of describing how objectivity can be acheived using the android analogy.

it shows quite clearly that for the androids reality is objective, it show how this is acheived and it show how the creators of this reality have subjectively created an objective reality for those androids.

So from a 'God' perspective reality is a subjective creation yet from the androids [human] perspective it is objective.

All humans have the capacity to assume the "God" perspective [higher self] which is what makes us so fundamentally different to animals that lack the sentience that we do.
It is our ability to step outside our universe and look from a God perspective that grants us our capacity to have freedom [ escapism ] from the drudgery of objective life.

 

So is there were a wall running down the middle of my face, so that my left eye sees a black wall touching my nose, but my right eye sees a whhote wall touching my nose, and each hemisphere of my brain is working is processing the visual input and shgaring the data, there are two of me?

 

uhm...they are individual robots...uhmmm....not you....hmmm