PDA

View Full Version : Subjectivity and Objectivity.. (philos)



YuMadThough
03-01-2011, 07:15 AM
Are the exact same things?

A subjective reality like consciousness has to perceive some kind of objective reality in order for the subjectivity to even exist.
Yet if we believe an objective reality exists and is what creates subjectivity then every subjective experience is really just an objective experience.
But this conclusion of us being just an objective experience can still only be reached subjectively using the subjective mind.

Objectivity precedes subjectivity but at the same time subjectivity precedes objectivity, Ad infinitum.
If they both continually precede each other then surely they must just be one of the same thing?, or at least there's no way to differentiate between either of them?

And if the above is somewhat true then doesn't this also render every philosophy based on subjectiveness or objectiveness pretty much equally invalid by default?




http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/2702/ryokiretard.jpg

StrongPostBrah
03-01-2011, 11:33 AM
You might enjoy reading some Bernard Williams. He talks about this kind of schit. "convergence of science" and absolute conceptions i.e. the point at which science is no longer unique to the observer but describes the world as it is. It's quite complicated and hard to grasp, for me anyway.

YuMadThough
03-01-2011, 06:29 PM
Every person has a subjective view and interpretations, studies have shown that before you are even aware of most information it has already been filtered processed and irrelevant bits discarded. An objective reality must exist or we would not be able to reproduce any experiments.

If we was to define subjectivity as just representations of what our minds think is happening outside of our brain, then i guess experiments that are reproducible would be creating the same representations in many peoples subjective experiences. Surely this would only indicate an "objective" reality existing though due to how all of our subjective minds are configured to create and interpret those experiments in the first place.

If our subjectivity itself is just an extension of that directly unobservable objective reality, then our "subjectivity" isn't subjective at all; but is instead just a subjective illusion of that "objectivity". If our subjectivity isn't really subjective (because subjectivity couldn't really exist) then it surely renders every concept related to subjectivity and objectivity (including science) invalid because these are purely subjectively derived concepts and so can't be trusted to be true?

Although to be fair I don't even think this is making too much sense now actually, maybe i need to think about this a lil more when my brain has stopped melting.


You might enjoy reading some Bernard Williams. He talks about this kind of schit. "convergence of science" and absolute conceptions i.e. the point at which science is no longer unique to the observer but describes the world as it is. It's quite complicated and hard to grasp, for me anyway.

Will check him out for sure, thanks man.

killthebuddha
03-01-2011, 07:57 PM
The distinction only seems to make itself apparent when we attempt to use language to fully capture the reality of the situation, which is neither entirely objective, nor entirely subjective. Rather, as Merleau-Ponty suggested, the reality is one of an intertwined set of relations, each of which depends on the other. Objectivity only exists because of subjectivity and vice versa.

ChetLemon
03-01-2011, 08:10 PM
If we was to define subjectivity as just representations of what our minds think is happening outside of our brain, then i guess experiments that are reproducible would be creating the same representations in many peoples subjective experiences. Surely this would only indicate an "objective" reality existing though due to how all of our subjective minds are configured to create and interpret those experiments in the first place.

If our subjectivity itself is just an extension of that directly unobservable objective reality, then our "subjectivity" isn't subjective at all; but is instead just a subjective illusion of that "objectivity". If our subjectivity isn't really subjective (because subjectivity couldn't really exist) then it surely renders every concept related to subjectivity and objectivity (including science) invalid because these are purely subjectively derived concepts and so can't be trusted to be true?

Although to be fair I don't even think this is making too much sense now actually, maybe i need to think about this a lil more when my brain has stopped melting.



Will check him out for sure, thanks man.
Lol, I'm actually following this. A little in the deep end for me but I'll try.

IMO its always a hard thing to kinda pinpoint. At the end of the day, you could say everything is actually subjective, and can only be subjective. This is because the ways in which we measure the physical 'objective' world is through our five senses. the way in which the world actually is completely different than how our stimuli interpret the world for us.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/99683


"There is documented evidence that for the first few days, babies do indeed see upside down. This is because their visual cortices have not yet recognized that the image entering the retina is inverted (see a physics textbook on optics for details; the human lens is a convex lens). Usually, this inverted image proceeds through the visual pathway: from the retina, through the optic nerve, to the lateral geniculate bodies, until it reaches the occipital lobe, which houses the visual cortex. It is the visual cortex that flips the image right-side up. This makes sense, because it would be much more difficult to coordinate all movements while you saw an inverted representation of the real world. For the first few days, babies' brains don't recognize that everything is inverted. Of course, their vision is also limited during this period of time, and they do not know what they are seeing anyway."

"There have even been experiments performed, where adults were given glasses that flipped the image. Thus, everything was inverted for a few days, before their brains learned to flip the image again to make it right-side up. Then, when they took off the glasses, they saw upside down again, and their brains had to adjust yet again."


The reason I quoted this phemonmena is to show that your world is shaped by your perception of it. This gives power to the world of subjectivity.

However, the objective cannot be denied. Say, for example, 5 people are given an odour to smell. All five of them say the smell is of lavender. Surely, we can rule out random chance that all the subjects randomly picked lavender. So how did they all reach this conclusion? Surely, we can say that lavender has a concrete biological structure which gives off a distinctive smell which a regular fuction human nose can recognise, given they have experienced the smell before and are given the same language or expression by which to convey their experience in the same way.

By recreating a result, through an experiment of exposing different people to the same stimuli, we have 'proven' an absolute, concrete 'truth' of the world around us. This is what science is based upon. The objective does exist because different sets of senses have been exposed to a stimuli, and have identified this stimuli as the same.

But this uderstanding of the objective is limited. As morpheus from the matrix said:
"What is "real"? How do you define "real"? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

This does not mean we can rule out objectivity. Rather, recognise that in our current physical existance, our objectivity is limited to as far as what we and our machines can sense. We COULD be in the matrix for all we know.

Here's a thought: what if our perception of reality, was different? What if we had shark-like senses?

ChetLemon
03-01-2011, 08:12 PM
The distinction only seems to make itself apparent when we attempt to use language to fully capture the reality of the situation, which is neither entirely objective, nor entirely subjective. Rather, as Merleau-Ponty suggested, the reality is one of an intertwined set of relations, each of which depends on the other. Objectivity only exists because of subjectivity and vice versa.

Agreed.

Enso
03-01-2011, 08:25 PM
The distinction only seems to make itself apparent when we attempt to use language to fully capture the reality of the situation, which is neither entirely objective, nor entirely subjective. Rather, as Merleau-Ponty suggested, the reality is one of an intertwined set of relations, each of which depends on the other. Objectivity only exists because of subjectivity and vice versa.

Correct. Experience itself is singular, but the description of it is dualistic. One creates the other.


OP, you may be interested in this:

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/)

ChetLemon
03-01-2011, 08:27 PM
Correct. Experience itself is singular, but the description of it is dualistic. One creates the other.

well said.

TranceNRG
03-01-2011, 08:45 PM
Are the exact same things?

A subjective reality like consciousness has to perceive some kind of objective reality in order for the subjectivity to even exist.
Yet if we believe an objective reality exists and is what creates subjectivity then every subjective experience is really just an objective experience.

Not quite.
Every subjective experience is a subjective experience of the objective reality.

For example, in an objective reality X = red sphere.
If you subjectively experience this X as anything else but red sphere, it still doesn't change the fact that X = red sphere.

In your first permit, you implicitly accepted the existence of an objective reality.
If, as you say such objective reality does exist, then our subjective experiences of it doesn't change it, since its existences is independent of us.

Moreover, if you say, as you did, that this objective reality creates subjectivity, then you have implicitly stated that this objective reality precedes the existence of the subjective perception of it.

This again strengthens the notion that this objective reality exists is independently and separately from our subjective experience of it.



But this conclusion of us being just an objective experience can still only be reached subjectively using the subjective mind.

Your initial conclusion does not follow your premises, hence your argument is invalid.
We are not an objective experience. But more importantly, what do you even mean when you say this? :) Your premises and explanation do not make this position intelligible.

Objectivity precedes subjectivity but at the same time subjectivity precedes objectivity, Ad infinitum.
[/quote]

If this objective reality created us and precedes us, then its existence is independent of us. Subjective experience of this objective reality does not precede the existence of this objective reality, if it is what has created/caused subjectivity.

There is an inherent logical contradiction (or tension) in your statement.

P can't create Q and be created by Q, simultaneously.




Existence of X and our perception of X are two different issues.

Enso
03-01-2011, 09:00 PM
If this objective reality created us and precedes us, then its existence is independent of us. Subjective experience of this objective reality does not precede the existence of this objective reality, if it is what has created/caused subjectivity.

Subjective reality needs consciousness to exist. However, without consciousness that objective reality could have never created any 'thing', or brought anything into existence (by choice).

I don't disagree with your statement, but how do we reconcile this?

TranceNRG
03-01-2011, 09:15 PM
Subjective reality needs consciousness to exist. However, without consciousness that objective reality could have never created any 'thing', or brought anything into existence (by choice).

I don't disagree with your statement, but how do we reconcile this?

You're presuming that this objective reality, whatever it is, which "creates" things must be conscious or has a "choice."
You're also presuming that its consciousness (and its choice) must be like human consciousness and human choices, hence subjective.

Human consciousness emerges from human biology/brain.
This objective reality is independent of human biology/brain.
Therefore, I do not see any reason to assume that even if it is conscious in one way or another, it must have subjective consciousness like humans.

Enso
03-01-2011, 09:20 PM
You're presuming that this objective reality, whatever it is, which "creates" things must be conscious or has a "choice."
You're also presuming that its consciousness (and its choice) must be like human consciousness and human choices, hence subjective.

Human consciousness emerges from human biology/brain.
This objective reality is independent of human biology/brain.
Therefore, I do not see any reason to assume that even if it is conscious in one way or another, it must have subjective consciousness like humans.

Yeah, I agree with you. However, I was of the mindset you were making a case for God as an objective reality with your post the way it was worded.

TranceNRG
03-01-2011, 09:30 PM
Yeah, I agree with you. However, I was of the mindset you were making a case for God as an objective reality with your post the way it was worded.

Oh I see.
No I wasn't. :)

But, even with God, we still cannot say anything about God's "consciousness" and "choice", considering that human consciousness, or consciousness as we know it, is dependent on and emerges from human biology/brain.

Right?

Enso
03-01-2011, 09:36 PM
Oh I see.
No I wasn't. :)

But, even with God, we still cannot say anything about God's "consciousness" and "choice", considering that human consciousness, or consciousness as we know it, is dependent on and emerges from human biology/brain.

Right?

Yes, because God preceded us. There is the problem though of the notion of being created in his image so the consciousness of God may not be all that different than ours and may be the exact same, but that is another story for another time.

I was going more in line with generic objectivity/subjectivity in that in the case of God/First Cause all arguments seem to fail in accurately describing the reality.

But, in line with your statement the universe would still exist even if we didn't. So there is obviously truth to what you are saying. It seems there is a point though in which that truth also seems to get suspended (when the relative meets the absolute).

TranceNRG
03-01-2011, 09:48 PM
Yes, because God preceded us. There is the problem though of the notion of being created in his image so the consciousness of God may not be all that different than ours and may be the exact same, but that is another story for another time.

I was going more in line with generic objectivity/subjectivity in that in the case of God/First Cause all arguments seem to fail in accurately describing the reality.

But, in line with your statement the universe would still exist even if we didn't. So there is obviously truth to what you are saying. It seems there is a point though in which that truth also seems to get suspended (when the relative meets the absolute).

The main question is, how can we, as human, with inescapable subjective perceptions, claim certainty or even knowledge about this independent objective reality?

:)

ChetLemon
03-01-2011, 10:13 PM
The main question is, how can we, as human, with inescapable subjective perceptions, claim certainty or even knowledge about this independent objective reality?

:)

Answer: we cant. Not with 100% certainty that is.

TranceNRG
03-01-2011, 10:23 PM
Answer: we cant. Not with 100% certainty that is.

Are you certain about your answer? ;)

Enso
03-02-2011, 08:05 AM
The main question is, how can we, as human, with inescapable subjective perceptions, claim certainty or even knowledge about this independent objective reality?

:)

If that objective reality is the source of subjectivity, then by using subjectivity objectively (hypothetically speaking). Which to me means seeing the unity of the Relative and Absolute as described in the Sandokai (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/sandokai.htm).