Meaning physical reality is just another subjective reality modeled after objective reality.. imperfect. Like subjective reality of the mind physical reality is a representation of objective reality. But unlike the subjective reality of the mind, physical reality strives to become one with objective reality.
Yes I think that's right, keeping in mind that "objective reality" is the "great unknowable IS", and physical reality is a model humans use to attempt to cope in our precarious circumstance. That we cannot ever
know (in the absolute sense) what is, is again, the cost of getting in the game in the first place.
Edit: I reconsidered. The two are as different as day and night.
I just read you extensive explanation in post 154, it clarifies a lot. Thanks
You're welcome. Real communication is a tedious fucking process, and I appreciate your willingness to be thorough and bear with the stumbling blocks.
I need to know some things from you though.
- How exactly do you view subjective reality?
Uhm... in my mind? Through my eyes? I feel it? Basically it's the sum of conceptual relationships in a mind, in action, percieving and doing its thing. It's "what seems to be". God is a part of subjective reality.
- Physical reality is how physics see reality ?
Basically yeah. It's a model that is technically also subject to "subjective reality", as it must
This is getting quite complicated, but I think I'm starting to see a feasible model breaking through.
Yeah it gets tough, but you're a trooper I can tell.
What you said about subjective reality being a part of objective reality got me thinking. I disagree with that somewhat.
The way I see it is that there is one reality, objective reality. Subjective reality and physical reality are in fact nothing more than models conceived by us to describe objective reality.
With you so far.
They are not a reality in the sense of objective reality, they are only realities to us (especially subjective reality).
Ok, but you're making statements about objective reality that assume you're taking a perspective that isn't you, which you can't do. What you can verify as you, is that there is definately a subjective reality. We can model from this that there is an objective reality in which we exist and can communicate. In doing so however, it's important IMO to ensure we remain consistent in the basis of our assumptions. I think I'm doing that by keeping things to "how they seem". I cannot prove an objective reality. I have to infer it based upon my assumption of self. Thus, it certainly seems there must be an objective reality in which we both exist, but our conduits to it are dissassociated by space, time and perspective.
- Subjective reality is a subconsciously fabricated and filtered practical model of objective reality, of the brain.
True, but fundamentally it's really all we have to work with.
- Physical reality is scientific way of looking at objective reality and strives to describe objective reality perfectly, unlike subjective reality.
Untrue. Physical reality is
part of subjective reality in that the only means to speak or "know" of it is through subjective reality. So it is subjective reality that attempts to describe objective reality to perfection (in the case that the subjective reality attempts science). It's my position however, that this is actually a misnomer. What we are really trying to do is to build models, etc., that apparently provide maximal utility to as many potential perspectives as possible. This isn't really saying anying about objective reality, only how we - perhaps even collectively - view it.
Also unlike subjective reality, physical reality is not filtered or subconsciously fabricated, but fabricated through measurements and tests.
Sort of true, which are all filtered through the senses and depedent upon the utility of the model in to which the data is fed in order to produce results. It's not "unlike subjective reality", we are all stuck in subjective reality. It's really more about method. Gnostics just claim knowledge, scientists use a "nuetral method" to gain it. Often though, scientists don't really understand the philosophy of science, and proclaim their results as "objectively true", or at some step between their results and our perception, it is translated similarly.
Obviously, both subjective reality and physical reality need to have a place in objective reality.
Well subjective reality is the only reality we can speak of with authority, so we have to frame our models with respect to that limitation (at least IMO).
But their place is nothing more than meaningless (objectively seen) biochemical reactions taking place in some mass of organic matter.
You did it again. You're framing your comments as if you aren't you, as if you're some objective element that can wholly nuetralize itself. If you had successfully done so however, you couldnt' speak of your observations, for there would be no you to have observed them. Given that we are limited to subjective reality as the basis for being in something that seems broader, again I think the only honest route to comprehension is in keeping our comments consistent with the realization of the opportunity cost that is paid by existing, and knowing you exist.
Meaning is the only reality I can know.
