Self evident truths, that are not self evident.

[infinitethoughts]

********
NOTE. This post is not intended to start a flame war against Lychee, or any one else.
This post is intended to simply look at statements, follow them, and then follow the conclusions.

********

Originally Posted by Lychee;65428 from --- Steve Is Wrong, and Endangering His Readers Thread.

Reality is both objective and subjective. This earth and world existed before you did, apart from your subjective experience of reality. Objective reality is what is there independent of the observer - what is being observed - and subjective reality is simply our perception of it.

1. If one makes the statement (and agrees with it) "I perceive 'subjectively' and can only perceive subjectively," then everything is subjective to you.

2. Following the above Axiom, it's impossible to perceive an objective universe.

********

Further, does an 'objective' universe exist?

l. Is there an 'objective' universe?
ll. Not to the subjective perceiver.
lll. Is there an 'objective' universe here, where we exist?

********

It would seem not, because everyone is perceiving subjectively.

********

Is there an 'objective' universe anywhere ?

Until you can rid of Awareness, an "objective universe" is an idea that is impossible.

********

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

********
NOTE. This post is not intended to start a flame war against Lychee, or any one else.
This post is intended to simply look at statements, follow them, and then follow the conclusions.

********



1. If one makes the statement (and agrees with it) "I perceive 'subjectively' and can only perceive subjectively," then everything is subjective to you.

2. Following the above Axiom, it's impossible to perceive an objective universe.

********

Further, does an 'objective' universe exist?

l. Is there an 'objective' universe?
ll. Not to the subjective perceiver.
lll. Is there an 'objective' universe here, where we exist?

********

It would seem not, because everyone is perceiving subjectively.

********

Is there an 'objective' universe anywhere ?

Until you can rid of Awareness, an "objective universe" is an idea that is impossible.

********

1. We perceive subjectively, but our awareness is subjective perceptions of objective things. The observer is a subject, the observed is the object. It's objective in that something is being observed, subjective in that something is being observed. Both parts are necessary.

2. Even our subjective awareness is objective in the sense that (depending on your world view) it is an objective part of the physical universe. It perceives but it is also perceived. Can we not observe other people thinking and acting, and thus indirectly observe their consciousness?

Objectivity and subjectivity are just labels for relationships between observer and observed, not statements about the nature of the unvierse in general.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

1. We perceive subjectively, but our awareness is subjective perceptions of objective things.

How can you know of objective 'things' if all you are able to do is perceive subjectively?

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

How can you know of objective 'things' if all you are able to do is perceive subjectively?

Because perceiving subjectively means being the subject of a perception; however there are no perceptions without objects to perceive. I can't prove that there objects outside of my consciousness, but it's not impossible that there are.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

I can't prove that there objects outside of my consciousness, but it's not impossible that there are.

So I should use faith to believe there are objects outside my subjective perceptions?

EDIT:
The definition you gave is not correct.
Here's Merriam Webster's defintion of subjective:
: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs (or mind -My edit.) and not directly caused by external stimuli.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

So I should use faith to believe there are objects outside my subjective perceptions?

Not necessarily. But it should be held to be possible.

EDIT:
The definition you gave is not correct.
Here's Merriam Webster's defintion of subjective:
: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs (or mind -My edit.) and not directly caused by external stimuli.

I don't think I gave a definition, but that sounds close to how I see it. Subjective simply deals with the subject (the mind of the observer) and objective with the object (the stimulus.) Just because your perceptions may not be "directly caused by external stimuli" does not mean that there is no connection between external objects and your awareness of them. Not to mention that the brain and sense organs are themselves physical objects, so your awareness resulting from them is awareness of an object.

[Mark Lapierre]

You need not rely on faith infinitethoughts. Faith is useful and if relying on it serves you well, then that's great! But you also have faculties of reason, as you've demonstrated in starting this thread. Do you think it's unreasonable to believe in the existence of objects for us to perceive if many individuals describe their perception of that object in the same way, and we can build instruments which also quantify that object in identical ways?

And even if it is all a projection of Universal Consciousness, so what? That doesn't change the rules, nor the perceptions we experience, nor the vast possibilities open to us.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

l. Is there an 'objective' universe?
ll. Not to the subjective perceiver.

In practice, an objective universe observed subjectively is significantly different to a genuinely subjective universe.

An objective universe affects the observer in an objective way, regardless of the observer's perceptions. In an objective universe, if someone shoots you in the back of the head, you may not have perceived it coming, but you're still just as dead.

In a genuinely subjective universe OTOH, your perceptions are reality.

I grant that it is impossible to prove whether the universe is truly subjective or objective (or something else entirely). But it's a big mistake to assume that, just because our perceptions are subjective that there's no difference between the two types of reality.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

Not necessarily. But it should be held to be possible.



I don't think I gave a definition, but that sounds close to how I see it. Subjective simply deals with the subject (the mind of the observer) and objective with the object (the stimulus.) Just because your perceptions may not be "directly caused by external stimuli" does not mean that there is no connection between external objects and your awareness of them. Not to mention that the brain and sense organs are themselves physical objects, so your awareness resulting from them is awareness of an object.

Aidan.
Definitions are there for a reason.
The definition of subjective is:

: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs (or mind -My edit.) and not directly caused by external stimuli.

It's not what you say:
Subjective simply deals with the subject (the mind of the observer) and objective with the object (the stimulus.)


I can't say it any more clearer.
~smile~

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Do you think it's unreasonable to believe in the existence of objects for us to perceive if many individuals describe their perception of that object in the same way, and we can build instruments which also quantify that object in identical ways?

The point I'm making is, these 'objects' that we all agree on and describe in the same way, is not an 'objective' universe.

It's something much more powerful then that, and conversely tell us what we really are.

We are 'truthmakers'. We are Truth.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Keith

An objective universe affects the observer in an objective way, regardless of the observer's perceptions. In an objective universe, if someone shoots you in the back of the head, you may not have perceived it coming, but you're still just as dead.

An objective cannot affect the observer, if the observer can only percieve subjectively.

Originally Posted by Keith

In a genuinely subjective universe OTOH, your perceptions are reality.

Which is the state of affairs. We perceive subjectively. 100 percent.

To say anything less, is failed logic.
Think about it.
"I perceive 'reality' 64%". ???
No.
It's all or nothing.

There is no truth 'out there', for the simple reason, we are the truth.
We are Truth makers.
The end all be all.......the Alpha and the Omega.

~smile~

[peritonlogon]

you don't see the solipsism-ish philosophy argued for so passionately too often. Of course, to argue against it really isn't that difficult, impossible to refute sylogistically, but, who considers that a worthwhile standard anyway?

Anyhow, infinitethoughts, you seem to be confusing a few things, "truth" and perceptions. Once you start using the language of perceptions, that is the extent of your argument. Since you have tacitly agreed that even your logical conclusions are perceptions, since, after all, that is their basis. Which means "truth" is really only applicable to the form of your argument, and not it's content.

But, "logic," in the sense of formal, catagorical speech is really not an effective method to get at reality (is it a wave or a particle). Efficacy, input/output, predictiveness are the modern standards (scientific method would be included here) and for good reason, they work, there is little chance for philosophical "subtlety" to lead you away from the obvious. This field of study was the work of Karl Popper and is worth checking out.

So, as far as "failed logic" goes, "all or nothing", may work well in language, but it doesn't correspond to experience and it produces a model which makes counter-experiential predictions. In your solipsistic model, I should be able simply to will myself taller, for elephants to mate with fish, or for eternal salvations in the present, but these things seem to be beyond my realm of control which makes the 100% subjective argument quite suspect.

This is a pretty common problem with language. Most philosophical problems of the past really just amount to linguistics leading to strange conclusions. This is also why certain philospher's don't make that much sense translated into English, while others do. For example, in Ancient Greek there was a real philosophical problem reconciling lying since the word logos had the connotation of both speaking and logic making spoken words much more closely linked to truth. As absurd as this sounds there were actually people spending their time arguing whether or not lying is possible, (which, let me tell you it is not (that's a russel paradox)). Also anyting involving the infinite has historically caused some problems with most languages.

[Lychee]

If your claim is that there is no objective reality, then what is the reality which subjective reality is standing upon? It must be based on something else because multiple realities cannot exist independently of one another. The objective reality that we are all existing and experiencing is what ties us together. Complete subjective reality makes the claim that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want, based solely on your beliefs. In this case, there would be no such thing as wrong or right beliefs when that is disproven by our experience today. It doesn't take much to realize there are positive and negative forces in the world.

We may not know exactly where the objective universe exists. After all, our senses rely on our minds. You know what I mean if you've seen "The Matrix." The movie isn't so dissimilar to what we are experiencing here. To Neo and the rest of the dreamworld people, their subjective reality is just a dreamworld. But what is true reality is what is behind the glitter and glam. This is what Neo sees when he takes the (red?) pill.

Perception is subjective. But what is our perception based on? Something that is concrete and unchanging.

The objective is affecting the observer by the observer's interpretation of it. It is not all or nothing.

What truth we accept for ourselves is the truth for our subjective reality. But it does not mean that there is no Ultimate Truth, independent of our perceptions.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by peritonlogon

you don't see the solipsism-ish philosophy argued for so passionately too often.

That's not my view. Solipsism is based on a single entity.
The way I see is, there are many entitites, all coming from their subjective perceptions. The meeting ground we call the "objective world".
I sense it's still not "objective" but rather more agreeing upon, but still in their subjective worlds.

Like the internet. We all are in our own worlds, (at rest at our computers) but all meet in 'cyberspace'.
Is this 'cyberspace' a place?
Is it an 'objective' world?
No not really.

Originally Posted by peritonlogon

But, "logic," in the sense of formal, catagorical speech is really not an effective method to get at reality (is it a wave or a particle).

Logic will take you past misconceptions.
In the first part of my post I've used logic.

In the second half, I'm using 'intuitive reasoning'

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Lychee

If your claim is that there is no objective reality, then what is the reality which subjective reality is standing upon?

To save time, here's what I said to Periton. It covers the points you're making.

The way I see is, there are many entitites, all coming from their subjective perceptions. The meeting ground we call the "objective world".
I sense it's still not "objective" but rather more agreeing upon, but still in their subjective worlds.

Like the internet. We all are in our own worlds, (at rest at our computers) but all meet in 'cyberspace'.
Is this 'cyberspace' a place?
Is it an 'objective' world?
No not really.

I think the matrix shows how it is, but not all the way. There's a lot missing.

Originally Posted by Lychee

Perception is subjective. But what is our perception based on? Something that is concrete and unchanging.

That's an interesting statement.
But is it really?
Not really.
If you have subjective perception, there's no external influence.
(See definition towards top of thread.)

The problem we have is asking ourselves how can all that we perceive possibly be subjective?
But the fact is, it is.

Originally Posted by Lychee

What truth we accept for ourselves is the truth for our subjective reality. But it does not mean that there is no Ultimate Truth, independent of our perceptions.

But how will you ever know this truth, if all you ever can do is percieve subjectively?
..........Which leads me to the conclusion that since we're eternal, and all we can do is perceive subjectively, then we are the truth.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Aidan.
Definitions are there for a reason.
The definition of subjective is:

: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs (or mind -My edit.) and not directly caused by external stimuli.

It's not what you say:
Subjective simply deals with the subject (the mind of the observer) and objective with the object (the stimulus.)

That is one definition, and not the most commonly used one. Merriam Webster also gives:

1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject

Which is more or less the description I gave. All perception by that definition is subjective because you are the subject of a stimulus.

Also:

3: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

Still this does not imply that just because something is subjective it cannot be an awareness of objects.

I can't say it any more clearer.
~smile~

Ironic place to make a grammar blip.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

If you have subjective perception, there's no external influence.
(See definition towards top of thread.)

I don't see how you support that statement. I showed you why the definition you gave was incomplete, and I think even that definition does not lead to your conclusion.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

But how will you ever know this truth, if all you ever can do is percieve subjectively?

You can know external truth if you assume that external truth to have caused your subjective awareness. For example, I believe that my vision is caused by light entering my eyes. This leads me to believe that my vision can in fact give me information about the external world.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

Still this does not imply that just because something is subjective it cannot be an awareness of objects.

Personally I think you're mincing words on this subject.
But that's just my opinion.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

To save time, here's what I said to Periton. It covers the points you're making.


I think the matrix shows how it is, but not all the way. There's a lot missing.




That's an interesting statement.
But is it really?
Not really.
If you have subjective perception, there's no external influence.
(See definition towards top of thread.)

The problem we have is asking ourselves how can all that we perceive possibly be subjective?
But the fact is, it is.



But how will you ever know this truth, if all you ever can do is percieve subjectively?
..........Which leads me to the conclusion that since we're eternal, and all we can do is perceive subjectively, then we are the truth.

You can go into the philosophy that we are immersed in the world and the world also exists in us. But where was the world before we existed? Before I was born, the world was here but my perception was not present for the world to exist so the world did not exist to me. That doesn't mean the world didn't exist. The world just existed independent of my observation of it. However, what reality is the world existing on?

Just because our views are colored by subjective reality, that doesn't mean it is impossible to align ourselves with Truth. Therein lies the challenge which makes life what it is.

I believe "The Matrix" does answer many points. The world which we perceive is based on sensory input interpreted by our minds. When I say that there is an objective reality, that isn't to say that there is the absolute existence of matter. What I mean is that there is an unchanging Law which is governing reality. Matter is an illusion, but there is a Reality which is supporting that illusion for us. We are all dependent on this one Reality, from which all superficial reality is derived.

Outside reality evokes emotions and sensations, and although we not be able to truly see objective reality completely objective from our perspective, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When I say objective reality, I mean the God and the Law which God holds in place. I mean God is the ultimate Truth.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Personally I think you're mincing words on this subject.
But that's just my opinion.

Could you support that opinion, please?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Lychee

Matter is an illusion, but there is a Reality which is supporting that illusion for us. We are all dependent on this one Reality, from which all superficial reality is derived.

.

So be it.
That is your truth.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

Could you support that opinion, please?

Well then we're back at square one.
~smiling~

In the context of us perceiving.....

1. If one makes the statement (and agrees with it) "I perceive 'subjectively' and can only perceive subjectively," then everything is subjective to you.

2. Following the above Axiom, it's impossible to perceive an objective universe.

And then you'll argue for your truths.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Well then we're back at square one.
~smiling~

In the context of us perceiving.....

1. If one makes the statement (and agrees with it) "I perceive 'subjectively' and can only perceive subjectively," then everything is subjective to you.

"I perceive subjectively" means "I perceive in a way that is subjective" not "the content or object of my perception is subjective." There is a difference between the nature of perception and it's content/object.

2. Following the above Axiom, it's impossible to perceive an objective universe.[/I]

No, it's impossible to perceive objectively. But it's not a contradiction to say that I can subjectively perceive an objective universe any more than it's a contradiction to say "this is a red book with white pages."

[/QUOTE]
And then you'll argue for your truths.[/QUOTE]

I'd rather discuss them than argue for them. If my tone sounds argumentative then I apologize.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews

And then you'll argue for your truths.

I'd rather discuss them than argue for them. If my tone sounds argumentative then I apologize.

Lol.
I should have put argue this way, "argue".
My bad.

******

I don't think we're argueing............are we?
~joke~

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

No, it's impossible to perceive objectively. But it's not a contradiction to say that I can subjectively perceive an objective universe any more than it's a contradiction to say "this is a red book with white pages."

Well I'd have to stongly disagree on that one.

[AidanMatthews216]

Well I'd have to stongly disagree on that one.

Suit yourself.

[Lychee]

This was certainly an interesting discussion...

[Thor]

Nice to see existentialism is still battling it out with structuralism.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

An objective cannot affect the observer, if the observer can only percieve subjectively.

I think this is the key sticking point. We agree that perception is subjective. But can something effect someone if he doesn't perceive it? (eg. can someone shoot you using a sniper rifle without you being aware of it?). If yes, then the universe is at least partially objective.

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Which is the state of affairs. We perceive subjectively. 100 percent.

Yes we do, but that's not the point. The point is whether or not there's a reality beyond our perceptions that we can't directly perceive.

You seem to be arguing that an objective universe perceived subjectively is a subjective universe, and that's not true.