Objectivity and how it can be achieved

Doreen,

Why is location considered as subjective?
How is location in this gedanken suggestive of subjectivity?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not to speak for Doreen, but I think that what she's getting at here is that subjectivity has a defined locus: a specific and fixed context.
Typically, it is this kind of feature that is used to differentiate "subjective" from "objective" [in a negative definition of the latter..].

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't feel they require it, it's more like when you say 'objectivity' I would call it consensus. Since they share the same data AND perspectives - though they are not aware of it - and issue I am not fully clear on but accepting for the sake of argument - they should agree on all facts. But this does not mean they are objective. Whatever limitations their sensory systems have - for example how much data is called a clear pattern, or the lack of UV perception - they have in common. So they have a kind of group objectivity. Socially they will not be called out for merely being subjective. But I do not think this is objective. In fact I would say it mirrors a lot of situations we are in - though we tend to share language as a key factor - with groups who hold the same beliefs. They have consensus. This is often confused with objectivity. You can almost look at groups out there - fundamentalists, astronomers with the same beliefs in the origins of the universe, whatever - as being like your robots. They will see the same things, though this seeing will be via texts and language, to a great extent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, thank you.

It seems to me objective vision would not have eyes in one or several places. One you have a vantage or vantages you have a particular skewed version or reality. The robots have many vantages. It is a clever construct, but it is a change in degree not in quality in relation to objective vision - whatever that would be.

I would like to say QQ that objective vision would be outward and inward from all points.

And suddenly we are theologians.

Another way to put it is location is bias.

And location in time would be this also. At least, I am not ready to grant it is not a subjectification of the robots.

 

interesting indeed!

as far as the robots are concerned there would be no distinction between inward and outward. Strangely enough!
They have both simultaneoulsy,... yet only an outward focus according to OUR alloof observation but not according to theirs. Remembering they have no judgement to make and are entirely passive to the data resource they are colllectively generating simultaneoulsy [ as one] over time

 

and this is premised dare I say on the presumption that all perspectives are independant of each other.
In this case however all perspectives regardless of location absolutely interrelated and dependent.
Does that make a difference?
We assume that objectivity is impossible to humans because of what?
...The presumption of autonomy and independance of perspective I would surmise...but I may need to reconsider...

 

Ah, but that's quite impossible.
As far as the activity of data-collection goes, you're right, all is fine [both 'objective'(sic) and subjective], but the problem comes when anything is done with that data.
Reportage, by definition, must originate from a locus, and as such, it thereby 'inherits' a subjective bias [in Doreen's terminology].
A data set, in and of itself, may pretend to be 'objective', but once in play, that objectivity is interrupted.

 

Well, that's the typical presumption [not that I agree with it...].
In this case though, the interdependency, by the above presumption, would preclude the possibility of objectivity.
The trick then is, is there a difference between: a 'multiplex of subjectivities' and 'objectivity'??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ok....if all robots are constantly moving amongst each other using data from the resource base as a way of maintaining cohesion imply subjective use of that data?
Remember that all perspectives share all persepctives data all the time.
[therefore every robot is "sub consciously and "objectively" aware of what every other robots is doing and where it is and all other data that happens to be in the growing data base, includiong input from the environment itself.
edit: please note I am not implying the case for objectivity is founded and correct. I am simply using the term to presume holistic integirty of the data resourse.

 

Yep. Understood.

Two points:

First, I would argue that in this case, the pool of robots are not "using" the shared data at all. Each having instantaneous access to the entire data set, for all intents and purposes, there is no difference between one robot or another. All the robot does is collect data, not make use of it.

Second, I'm assuming that there is a purpose for the data set that the robots collect. If this data goes beyond the scope of those robots, it immediately reverts to a subjective set [by virtue of being used].

If, alternatively, the data is solely accessed by the robots, then it is of no use at all. Moreover, at best, all this represents [to the robots, who alone have access] is a solipsistic reality. Ergo, objectivity goes out the door....



...just thinking out loud here....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, I am not sure, in the end, what our distinction is between inward and outward, except there seem to be two ways of looking.

But the robots are just like our eyes only they have more vantages. Even our eyes overlap fields of vision. Your robots are equivalent to say me watching myself in a mirror while feeling kinesthetically the movements I am making. In terms of data that is.

 

the purpose of this part of the gedanken was to install a basic and objective foundation to build a more complex system over the top of.

Possibly consider or think of more than one layer of experience using an objective data resource as your foundation.
Currently it appears that the system has little use or utility but as a foundation it becomes enourmously important to all other layers of experience.
Providing certainty for example and root cohesion for all other aspects.
when adding a variable to only one robot with an objective supporting foundation for example, will we see an end to the illusion of objectivity ?

these types of question are looming...for me at least and seem an obvious extension of the gedanken.

 

reminds me of a thought experiment ages ago...
"take two near perfect glass mirrors and a elm leaf and sandwhich the elm leaf between the two mirrors that are facing each other so that the mirrors are effectively one object.'

Can't see what is going on but from experience with mirrors facing each other a distance apart you should have effectiviely infinite reflections of the elm leaf.
The robot universe is similar in context but considerably more complex.

 

mathematically the robot issue can only lead to infinity [data reflections] I believe but may stand corrected yet..
logically running like this I think [ out of depth so please bear with me..]

1 robot = 9 perspectives
each of those 9 perspectives = 9 perspectives reflections
so 1 robot = (9X9)X9 perspective reflections

and so
1 robot = 9x9x9 perspective reflections
yet each of those 9x9x9 perspective reflections has 9x9x9 persepective reflections
so 1 robot = (9x9)x9x(9x9)x9 perspectives

etc etc and thus all the way to infinity.

so in this case 1 robot = infinite perspective reflections.
hmmm not sure....

 

for the sake of helping keep the ball in view I posted the above quote from earlier in the thread.