Objectivity and how it can be achieved

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    It isn't inconsistent. It is a fact that you do not possess an absolute frame of reference of totality. And neither does a set of robots. If there is a way for objectivity to be acheived, it must be acheived through transcendence of the limits of subjective perception.

    -Robot concludes X is true.
    -You agree with robot that X is true.
    -X is true.

    -You subjectively believe that X is true.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    sorry lix but I got nothing more to add.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    just to sum up this issue of consensus and actual.
    The robots have no ability nor do they have any need to agree or disagree. The data flow is just what it is and not subject to interpretation or speculation.
    There is no need for consensus and no abiliity exists for that to happen any way.

    From the robots universal perspective all data is accurate and true and this is acheived by sytems that the robots have no control over. It is designed into the system using a holistic reflective feed back system.

    There is no "outside the system" for the robots. There is no escape from the reality of their information resource, there is no room or ability for the robots to correct the data using their unique perspective programming. There is no conditioning learned.

    The data is all they have and thats it. they create no data of their own even though they may appear to do so.
    all individual robots are effectively one robot, and all of them individually are all robots combined. infinitely. There is no freedom at all. none

    freedom/autonomy has yet to be built into the system
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    That's nice. I can make a robot too. Let's presume this robot has objective perspective of absolute totality of space/time/existence/reality. Then what?
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    well ... build your construct make a few nice little graphics, add a few words of dialogue and post it here at sciforums for every one else to have a great time tearing it apart...
    worth it ...you'll see!
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    The reason behind this thread was because with all the discussion about the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity I asked myself the question as no doubt the writers of the MATRIX did and more sublime video games do,

    How do we build an objective reality for the participants with in that reality?
    be a little adventurous with some physics and bingo here we have just one example.

    maybe there are other ways to acheive the same thing but I reckon ultimately there isn't...but who knows hey?

    Objective reality is self evident and requires no consensus. The observer(s) must be purely passive to that self evident reality. The reality must also be purely passive to the observers as well.
    this doesn't stop the observers from animation just merely from self animation or [in absolutum] self determination ~ aka freewill.

    yeah I know a pretty boring universe this one is...
  10. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    I don't need to put up any graphics, dialogue, or anything like that.
    Here is all I need:
    1. Presume Mr. Roboto.
    2. Presume Mr. Roboto has FOR of absolute totality.

    That's it. Next.
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    well...how is it acheived?
    How would you support your presumptions?
    what ever FOR means!
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    As the resources base is updating in real time regardless of moveement I fail to see how this would detract from the contention of continuous objectivity. In other words movement wouldn't IMO create a subjective data stream as all robots are experiencing the same movement at a subconscious level whilst only one is consciously.

    The robots like humans are more interested in what they can uniquely "See" that what others can "See" so their indicvidual focus is not on the global resource but on there input to it. Therefore more interested in their conscious experience and not their subconscious one...[human analogue] or alternatively "more interested in their individuality [uniqueness/differences] than their collectiveness" - sounds familiar hey?

    see above - first coment

    I'll put this one aside for later thinking..

    The robots are not "living", the color information means nothing to them. it is merely a data that shows frequency and vibration thus we as aloof observers could if we wish place a value upon, namely color.
    However the point is that all robots see the exact same frequency thus the exact same data thus the frequency would be an objective input. [ no need to agree on frequency]

    Obvously the question comes up : How could such a perfect feedback system be created to facilitate such accuracy?

    There is only one way that I know of and that will have to wait for another thread when eveidence is available to support it.

    Given that the robots are entirely passive regarding their global resource/ individual data collecting, no consensus is needed nor available....and so on.....
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2010
  13. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Mod Hat,


    I'm tiring of your refusal to engage in discussion properly here.
    QQ has repeatedly critiqued your vague and haughty responses and typically your responses take the form of an unexamined presumption of facticity and certainty. It's clear here that you're not interested in engaging in a worthy dialogue. Your dogmatism is both troublesome and tiresome, representing the worst kid of Intellectual Dishonesty.
    Consider this to be an official Warning.
  14. alexb123 The Amish web page is fast! Valued Senior Member

    QQ Great topic, very tired at the moment and could only read to page 4, will read the rest tomorrow.

    However, I have a question (I'm not sure if its been covered). From your system of robots what could you predict? So what outcomes would be certainties? Would you need to be able to predict all outcomes to know you had objectivity?
  15. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    If they are completely passive regarding their global resource/ individual data collecting how are they different from say a stone or an atom? These are affected by their environments and we could call whatever changes they undergo 'knowledge'. Does my toaster have knowledge in that it decides the bread is ready?

    These robots don't know everything about themselves and the wall, though they know a lot. They know enough for certain things. So does my toaster. Admittedly my bread is not wired into the toaster, so there is less data, but in neither instance is there all data.

    I realize I may be missing the points - in a number of instances - but I am asking what comes up for me.
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    If you had the computational resources everything could be predicted past , present and future as all information is exact and accurate with out any possibility of unknowns.

    In the typical religious context about omniscience it is often stated that God would ultimately do nothing and would not change anything. In effect he is impotent by being everything and all things all the time.

    The robot scenario has no freedom to make decisions as this is yet to be built into the system but even when it is I would predict this would only merely complicate the situation and the universe would still stay perfectly objective and deterministic. However I would contend that once a thresh hold of determining values is reached actual self determination for the robots becomes possible and objective reality as described so far changes to something rather amazing [ still fully deterministic yet self deterministic at the same time - a paradox of both freedom and oppression simultaneously]
    Where the robot is free to deal with the oppression of the determinism proffered by his environment any way he sees fit. Thus we have free will dealing with oppression. and yet still we have an objective universe...
    yet still we have no life thus no intrinsic value...

    The conclusion of this gedanken was planned ages ago to end with a fully functional quantum entangled universe with free will, volition and self inspired animation, basically all the attributes we would ascribe to humanity yet not one single aspect of this universe is living therefore not one thing in this universe knows knowledge or value and only behave as they are programmed to behave even if in part that programming is self derived. [only the designers of this universe can gain value, assuming that the designers are able to achieve a sense of value [ living ]
    Of course this beggars the question "Why do I feel value and the "knowledge" of such, and living so directly dependant?" another thread perhaps...
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    they aren't at this poitn in the gedanken even if they apppear animated. we essentially have robotic rocks and not much more yet objective unto them and itself.

    When the toast and the toaster all provide input into the data resource about each other and themselves they would have all the data that is possible to have. [ in this universe ] Programming then would take advantage of that data in rather incredible ways and funnilly enough you could end up with a typical toaster that if you didn't be careful would burn the toast! [ironic chuckle]

    The only real distinction I guess is that the robots have the potential for programming articulation and animation where as a rock doesn't.
    A physical Matrix rather than a virtual one..if that make any sense at all.

    and very valid those askings are....

    In your rather marvelous Knowledge thread currently running the issue of what is knowledge is very important as to whether the robots no matter how sophisticated they are, can actually have knowledge in the way we living organism do.
    Another television series "Battles Star Galactica" with the advent of a mechanical race called the Cylons breaches this subject rather well IMO...In fact IMO the whole TV series was a magnificient gedanken into many aspects...
    In fact come to think on it, the TV series does/did a much better job many aspects yet to come than this gedanken ...ha..and in color too I might add....I just realised - silly boy!
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Another issue I see, or maybe it's the same that others have pointed out, is that the robots are not conscious - and can make no decision other than that programmed by someone who is. That programming gives them an inherent subjectivity when it comes to their perception.
    Sure, they have sensors - but the sensors will be of a certain type / nature - and their analysis of what the sensors pick up is determined in accordance with the programming.

    Further - I would think that ALL sensor/interpretation machines (e.g. eye/brain) can be fooled into thinking that it is observing one thing when it is actually something else. This is due in no small part to the subjectivity of the analysis machine / brain.
    Robots and their sensor/programming machine are no different.

    It doesn't matter if all such robots are linked - they are still just a sensor/interpretor combo - and thus subject to subjectivity at the point their analysis is made, at least as far as I see it.

    To counter this you would surely need to demonstrate that their programming does not have any subjectivity within it.
  19. alexb123 The Amish web page is fast! Valued Senior Member

    QQ surely on the most basic level you have proven you will only find objectivity in mathematical certainties?

    Therefore, is your aim here to stretch the boundaries as far as they will go without crossing over in to subjectivity?

    Also, whats interesting here is that objectivity is maintained by the total alignment of the differing subject matters (robots). So you could theorise that in humans if we want to reach objectivity we should follow a similar course? However, the tread is dominated by challenging and we see very little questioning that would allow each other to better adapt and interpret the subject matter.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    excellent points!

    "sensors them selves are subjective instruments" hmmmmm....

    I guess if one considers that in this universe everything is entirely subjective and determined by the designer then what do we have from:
    1] The designers perspective?
    2] The robots perspective?
    I guess what I am attempting to ask is:

    "If the subjective illusion has absolute integrity" then is it still an illusion to those experiencing it?"

    This robot gedanken may not solve any issues but it sure as hell inspires some interesting questions...[chuckle] well...it certainly it does for me any way...

    regarding the programming.
    I would contend that creating the programming would be a subjective excesses [ by the designer] but once installed it would be objective in what it achieves as the basic programing for data sharing would have absolute integrity [ regarding all robots ]

    Keeping in mind the only difference between robots is what a robot is focused on. [ unique data input into the global resource]
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    this I feel could be quite correct, the robots in a sense being merely mathematical constructs acquiring data for the global data base...

    not really as I feel at this stage that no matter how hard you stretch the illusion of objectivity remains intact...but it's a thought and a possible test idea I must admit.

    or to reach subjectivity depending on your POV.

    I tend to feel that humans are not dissimilar to our robots in many ways except for one key aspect and that being the ability to apply values associated with a "living" experience.
    Currently we believe that each and every human is independent of the other or should i say those who follow scientific thought tend to.

    However one could argue that is there was not a "constant" that maintained cohesion of experience amongst seemingly independent autonomous individuals the universe would very quickly disintegrate, both for the human and the universe generally.
    At present that universal constant is unknown to science but I believe that once it is known objectivity as a fundamental outcome will be provided as a part of the universal constant. [a TOE must include an answer to this question of subjectivity/objectivity]
    If in this gedanken we threw in an anomaly the cohesion of the system would fall apart almost immediately leading to utter chaos. [ robots bumping into robots, no useful activity available...and totally insane outcome]
    Prior to posting this thread ages ago it occurred to me that there must be objectivity as a foundation otherwise the universe would be incoherent after a very short time span. As error of judgment is compounded by further errors of judgment due to errors of perception and so on....suffice to say if the constancy of the constant was removed from this or the human universe immediate chaos would and can only be the outcome.

    Doreen's earlier suggestion of throwing in a snake alien to the system would prove catastrophic ....ultimately to that system.

    One of the test premises lerking behind all this is:
    "It only takes one constant in an ocean of infinite variables to generate order from chaos"

  22. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Which should make us laugh, I think. I would say that if it was not subjective it would not be made of matter and be in one place. (or I suppose it could be ALL matter). Part of subjectivity is that it has a location - even if our eyes have two locations our sight has a location. This is subjective. The robots are simply a progression from monocular vision to binocular vision to a kind of sonar vision with a broader location.
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    why do you feel the robots require or have consensus?

    *sorry I missed asking this earlier.

Share This Page