sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: subjective

1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

To imply, state or claim that reality is subjective is untenable as a position due to self negation. The evidence for this is ubiquitous and measurable, for example the weight of an object does not change when ones opinion or feeling about the objects weight changes.

Moreover if reality is based on feeling, to be true this must be an objective truth or reality, it must be true beyond subjectivity, however if it is subjectively true then if you feel it is not based upon feeling then it would not be based upon feelings, thus the position becomes self negating.

for perception to be subjective, a claim that perception is subjective must be objectively true, implying that an objective truth exists otherwise perception could not always be subjective. this self negation destroys the semantic argument that reality is subjective

You heard it here first: this is going to get interesting!

(objectively, of course!)

I will mull this over and put my head on the block when I have a bit more time. Great post!

JBArk

If an objective reality exists independent of my senses, I have no direct access to it, and never have. Everything I have ever experienced has been mitigated, transformed and projected through my nervous system. Hence, all of my reality is subjectively experienced, regardless if you and i both find the same block of ice to feel cold.

Whether or not something exists outside of my personal experience - highly likely, however it is a completely alien world and will always be.

If I could somehow 'see' the world described by physics, it would be so totally alien and terrifying that I can't even wrap my head around what it might be like. A colorless, soundless world of vibrating particles in mostly empty space. Somehow we transform that into our day to day lived experience, rich in color/sound/textures that are not inherent in the universe itself

That is an objective statement, if it is held to be true.

Did you mean to underline his argument? I think he put it succinctly, but to articulate, what you are saying is that there MUST be an objective reality, and that we CANNOT know it because it is filtered selectively and altered. I agree with the second half of this statement, but not necessarily the first, which is necessarily problematic (both the first half of the statement AND my conundrum of believing in a second clause that depends on the first to be true, while at once not believing in the first)

Sometimes articulating clouds the issue.

JBArk

To throw around words over subjective vs. objective is, to me, ultimately futile in itself, since to discuss one is to invoke the other. Each can only exist in relation to the other; without either the other cannot occur. I'm not a fan of Advaita Vedanta and the non-dualist schools so popular in recent years (although I appreciate that others enjoy and find value in their work) but even they would agree that the positing of either extreme as fact is folly.

If we argue for an objective reality, existing independent of the senses, then we should ask ourselves whether we've actually located 'it' personally or are simply accepting it as belief. Can we find an objective "thing" which exists independent from a subject who observes it?

The same goes for subjectivity; can you locate an ontological being underlying reality, a super-consciousness existing separate from the world of the senses, including the sense door of "mind"?

I suggest it more useful to look at our own experience and see whether subject or object can be found beyond mental imputation.

Just my two mongolian togrogs.

it is simply that subjectivity self negates

all roads lead to objectivity

if you perceive that perception is subjective and believe this to be true, then you believe that you objectively know that perception is subjective

for to have made a claim that subjectivity exists, you imply that you perceive objective reality and that the objective reality is that perception is subjective


moreover in evidentiary terms there is no reason to suppose subjectivity can be absolute or that objective reality does not exist, that is merely abstract conjecture lacking evidence, while evidence supporting objective reality exits, for opinions and feeling cannot alter the measurement or standardization of sequence, in other words the subjective argument holds zero credibility because measurement does not meet the definition of subjective. opinion does not impact measurement, thus the subjectivity of perception is finite and rather limited in a measurably objective manner

semantic conjecture of abstract terms is all the subjective argument has going for it
for to make a claim that perception is subjective is to make a claim you can subjectively perceive objective reality


the claim that we cannot perceive objective reality self refutes for if it is true then it as a statement cannot be known and thus as a claim it becomes invalid

AlbertKlloyd - Would you agree that we can only truly know the present moment (if that)? If so, then the information gleaned from measuring something over and over is only relevant in the present moment in which it is measured. And if this is true, then nothing from the past is reliable, and any previous measurements, and our present recalling of them, is suspect.

It is possible, and not unprovable, that we live in an eternal present moment, so that any coherence derived from our experience is simply an illusion of coherence. Or, more simply, imagine you are in a dream, and that you are the only dreamer, and that every moment you remember things your memory changes to cohere to the present state of things that you, the dreamer, have created and are imagining and re-imagining every instant to be consistent. How would you know? What proof is there that the past is consistent with the present, or even exists, or existed, at all?

I understand your point, and anticipate your response:

Yes, but JBArk, underlying all that is the dreamer, or the one experiencing the present moment, no? And THAT is the objective reality of it. Objectively, there must be a dreamer or an "experiencer" to dream or experience things subjectively, regardless what form those subjective experiences take. (I am sure you would phrase it differently ).

The only things I can say to this are that intuitively, I feel your argument MAY be wrong, and that it is logically sound in an arena where logic often fails. By way of example, things should logically always be divisible and re-divisible OR there must be a smallest possible particle of something. We know this to be false. Logic is fallible, which I realize is the weakest of arguments, but you have created an impenetrable wall, and it's all I have left.

The point of this post? I believe what you propose to be sound logically, but likely false, but unprovably so.

Unless anyone has any better ideas to tear down this fortress wall?

Cheers,
JBArk

Thought experiments are fun. I don't think any of us really know the ultimate answers. Love you seekers, love life and puff tuff

I will agree that the aspects of now and time are meaningless in relation to this topic.

It is not only unrelated, but not true.
For information measured can be used to predict outcomes.



This is a meaningless abstraction having no evidence for it and thus is not tenable.
It is moot.
Moreover it destroys the meaning of the word dream, which only exists in contrast to non-dream.

The very concept of proof is itself abstract, nothing is provable, this tenet is foundational for all research and speculation. it is a given and does nothing to subvert the validity of experience. Nothing is known or proven, rather we employ evidence to evidence things, which does not prove them, it just indicates.

So what is the evidence for the concept of "life is a dream"?
Conjecture or speculation cannot be considered evidence.
Without evidence it becomes untenable and meaningless to engage in such lines of thinking if one cannot investigate them, and speculation is not investigation.

Another way to express this is:

"Nothing is True...Everything is Permissible"

An old tenet, and an indication that everything/everyone is wrong/right simultaneously.

Schrödinger's cat is alive and well...and dead (in this thread)

i question the notion of objectivity.
rather i feel somethings are only "mutually subjective"
and i do not understand how saying that perception is subjective somehow implies there exist an objectivity outside of that perception...

To claim perception is subjective is to make an objective claim. For if it was a subjective claim it would not be true in general.

While all opinions are valid, it is false that everyone is right, the evidence for this is abundant, your computer is evidence, as is alkaloid chemistry. Once it was claimed that yopo was active because of lime, it everyone was right then that would be true, but the right theory was that an alkaloid caused the effects. 5HO-NNDMT ...

I must not have explained myself clearly, because I see you did not understand my point. All that has been measured has been measured in the past, apart from that which is being currently measured, in the present. If the present moment is the only one known with any certainty, then measurements in the past, and the way we subjectively remember measuring them, or what other people or sources tell us about what happened or what was measured in the past is unreliable. I am basing this, of course, largely on the 2 clauses:

1) One can not know anything except that one exists because because one thinks. (Cogito ergo sum)
2) We cannot know for certain anything but the present moment .

The rest is conjecture, and as I stated above, any consistency in experience or measurement, while taken for granted, is philosophically impossible to prove, or "evidence", if you accept both the clauses above. And if you do accept them, they are VERY relevant to the discussion.

I hope you made it to the end of my last post where I stated my main point , which was to admit my stance was weak and that your arguments were logically sound and that "Logic is fallible, which I realize is the weakest of arguments, but you have created an impenetrable wall, and it's all I have left."

I basically conceded victory (but with a caveat ). And I will add that no one has yet found a chink in your armour, though I still stand by my arguments above. An appeal to Intuition? Weakest argument yet, but, as I stated, the only one left to scream against your impervious edifice of logic.

Cheers,

JBArk

I simply find your point irrelevant.
And slightly questionable in a peculiar way.

I do not agree 100% that thought indicates one exists.
And if all we know is now, then that begs certain questions about a feedback loop involving now and perception.

To form a conclusion i need more information about now, but to assert that i percieve now i need to observe now independent of now... otherwise it self negate for me.

I tend to think Descartes was right on the money, at least as far as that one idea goes. Is there anything then, in your opinion, to indicate we exist? And if not, your point about subjectivity and objectivity is moot, no?


"To form a conclusion i need more information about now, but to assert that i percieve now i need to observe now independent of now... otherwise it self negate for me."

Technically you are observing now independent of now, in a sense. There is, of course, a lag between perception and cognition, making NOW actually past, but that's a whole other can of worms. But maybe that is your explanation: if we cannot actually observe now in any meaningful way independent of now, or the present moment, then its self negation renders it unreliable as evidence that we exist. Is that what you mean?

JBArk

cogito, ergo.....cogito.
decartes was a bit presumptuous for my tastes.

so too is it presumptuous (imo) to assume there is an objectivity or truth that exists outside of one's perception. this isn't an objective claim, it is a mutually subjective one (just because it applies to all those who percieve, doesn't make it objective, its just a subjective experience that overlaps with other's experiences [assuming they, or really anything, exists])

the brain in a vat/decartes demon thought experiments apply here...
as does the philosophy of epistemological solipsism (ESPECIALLY epistemological solipsism).


i agree whole-heartedly with this, but i am not sure anyone is arguing everyone is right. i'm pretty sure subjectivity doesn't imply "everything is correct, now"

Existence can be considered in contexts of observation.
In this identity or self is too subjective to assert as choate for me, but existence itself i consider verified.

I disagree about subjectivity being a subjective claim, because it does not vary with subjective shift. Thus for me it is objective as a claim. Otherwise it would not be consistent.

so if we mutually share a subjective delusion (and an incredibly consistent one at that), it is thus objective, rather than mutually subjective?

im not sure i agree with that, and neither does the gravity monster.

i can ONLY experience subjectively. therefore everything i can know is subjective by definition. if i say "everything i can know is subjective", that is not objective. if the same is true for you, why does THAT make anything objective? just because it is mutual?

If you are right and to percieve subjectively equates to what is percieved being subjective, then you cannot invoke or refer to the existence of others, like me, and claim we share anything.

If you claim i exist in addition to you, you are making an objective claim. Otherwise there can be nothing outside of your perception that is not you.

It is a fallacy that subjective perception means that what is percieved is subjective. It only means that whatever is percieved is percieved subjectively, it does not mean that that what is percieved is subjective.

However your position is that you cannot verify or believe that anything exists outside of your perception, thus there is no point in conversing because you cannot believe that i exist.