4 ms·

Just to nitpick: Wouldn't this by definition make it non-objective? I would think the objective reality in your explanation would be what your sensory organs a

by eivarv 9y ago

Just to nitpick: Wouldn't this by definition make it non-objective? I would think the objective reality in your explanation would be what your sensory organs are reacting to, not what you perceive.

colordrops 9y ago
Yes I've thought of this but didn't want to complicate things. My current stance is that reality is dualistic and both subjective and objective are symbiotic and can't exist without the other.
- eivarv 9y ago
  Why do you believe this to be the case?
  - sova 9y ago
    Just to add to the discussion: Subject would be Perceiver, and Object would be Perceived. Are they actually capable of being separated?
    - eivarv 9y ago
      Why should we assume that they are not?
      - sova 9y ago
        In an instantaneous-clip of all our sensory data (visual field, auditory sphere, tastes, smells, touches/bodily tactility), where do we draw the line between perceiver and perceived ?
  - colordrops 9y ago
    It seems to me that there is no evidence for either the subjective or the objective realms being the "real" reality. There is a strong argument for either, and they can both be explored with depth. The concept of "reality", of a physical universe, of a "you", of order and pattern, of an persistent objective reality outside of you, do not exist per se, but as simulation and models in your mind that you accrued throughout your life. To be more specific, there is an underlying reality that is neither "objective" nor "subjective", but from which both of these realities emerge once a conscious being appears in it. We cannot directly know the true nature of this underlying reality, as it cannot be directly experienced. What we call objective reality is really the experience of the simulation in our mind synthesized from sensory data, as well as our model of this simulation (science), and not the underlying "true" reality.
    - eivarv 9y ago
      I'm not sure I follow. From my understanding of the term, the "real" reality would be the same as the objective realm per definition; What do you mean when you say "objective" as in "... the subjective or the objective realms"? Some sort of shared definition? If so, wouldn't this also be subjective to a certain degree? I might just be post-hoc rationalizing my own interpretations here, but doesn't our subjective experiences of reality being based on our sensory organs' interpretation of stimuli from what is presumably the objective reality make fewer assumptions than a concept involving interconnected or "symbiotic" realities?

by eivarv 9y ago

Just to nitpick: Wouldn't this by definition make it non-objective? I would think the objective reality in your explanation would be what your sensory organs are reacting to, not what you perceive.

colordrops 9y ago

Yes I've thought of this but didn't want to complicate things. My current stance is that reality is dualistic and both subjective and objective are symbiotic and can't exist without the other.

eivarv 9y ago
Why do you believe this to be the case?
- sova 9y ago
  Just to add to the discussion: Subject would be Perceiver, and Object would be Perceived. Are they actually capable of being separated?
  - eivarv 9y ago
    Why should we assume that they are not?
    - sova 9y ago
      In an instantaneous-clip of all our sensory data (visual field, auditory sphere, tastes, smells, touches/bodily tactility), where do we draw the line between perceiver and perceived ?
- colordrops 9y ago
  It seems to me that there is no evidence for either the subjective or the objective realms being the "real" reality. There is a strong argument for either, and they can both be explored with depth. The concept of "reality", of a physical universe, of a "you", of order and pattern, of an persistent objective reality outside of you, do not exist per se, but as simulation and models in your mind that you accrued throughout your life. To be more specific, there is an underlying reality that is neither "objective" nor "subjective", but from which both of these realities emerge once a conscious being appears in it. We cannot directly know the true nature of this underlying reality, as it cannot be directly experienced. What we call objective reality is really the experience of the simulation in our mind synthesized from sensory data, as well as our model of this simulation (science), and not the underlying "true" reality.
  - eivarv 9y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. From my understanding of the term, the "real" reality would be the same as the objective realm per definition; What do you mean when you say "objective" as in "... the subjective or the objective realms"? Some sort of shared definition? If so, wouldn't this also be subjective to a certain degree? I might just be post-hoc rationalizing my own interpretations here, but doesn't our subjective experiences of reality being based on our sensory organs' interpretation of stimuli from what is presumably the objective reality make fewer assumptions than a concept involving interconnected or "symbiotic" realities?