If there is no objective reality, your perception cannot be subjective, for nothing can be believed to exist outside of your perception that would facilitate perception, ergo there is nothing to percieve and you cannot assert that you exist, or that you percieve, for you subjectively percieve that you percieve and if that is not an objective truth you cannot claim that you exist or that you percieve.

For me the phrase "i think therefor i am" is problematic.

It is saying thinking generates identity which generates thinking, so it suffers from origination problems. It is a paradox.
If we omit linear time it makes more sense, but arises how?

I have nothing to further this thread but I must say I am enjoying it so far and am looking forward to the future posts !

On one hand i understand what you are trying to say. Whilst i do believe you are correct we will never know this as a 100% certainty until we have a scale that's accurate enough to weigh things at an atomic level. And even then... can we ever be 100% accurate?

Still the only thing, I maintain, we can know with certainty. No surprise to me that "only thing" is a paradox. And origination problem? Is there any logical clause concerning existence that does not have origination problems? And if that is true, then we may assert nothing about existence and it follows that if we can assert nothing on the subject, the subject of subjective or objective is rather moot.

Paradox is at the center of everything!
If you don’t see that, then you are clearly in need of some DMT.

Does a lack of certainty imply nothing is validated by observation?

I do not believe this.

In terms of observation cause and effect are effective enough to allow action and develop methods and technologies, which are not undermined in efficacy by any arguments about uncertainty. Ergo this conversation is facilitated by developed technology, so how meaningful is uncertainty when observation and conclusion can provide functional observable utility?

If the subjectivity of perception cannot undermine the efficacy of percieved function of our surroundings then how meaningful is it? No amount of determination or belief can be observed to interfere with the efficacy of extant technology, thus there is every reason to suppose objective reality exists despite subjective perception.

When subjective perception can alter percieved function of enviroment in terms of the efficacy of say, gravity, then there will be a reason to suppose that reality is not objective, but the evidence thus far does not support the conclusion that objective reality does not exist and the logic of the arguement of subjectivity does not rest upon meaningful observation, just speculation.

Faith alters belief, but not function of the world we interact with, so there is every reason to suppose that objective reality exists that facilitates the subjective experience, but not that reality is subjective.

We may dream that life is a dream, but that amounts to contrast between life and dream.

I think that we see reality in a subjective way. Isn't that why we make tools to measure and weigh in order to objectify the subjectivity?
If you give 100 people a rock and they have to guess the weight, each one will come up with a different figure. Machines are objective objects and humans are subjective subjects.



Not necessarily. If i claim that perception is subjective i could be wrong. Doesn't that too make my truth subjective?

Is perception true in and of itself or does it need to be validated and confirmed?

The fact that we can be wrong makes it seem subjective to me, though i am uncertain.

I think yes and no. Maybe we need to validate and confirm our perception in order to interact with eachother in a practical way. If i was the only living thing on the planet my perception wouldn"t need to be validated. Maybe, due to the nature of reality, there will always be a part of it that needs a tool inventing to measure it. Thereby confirming that there will always be an aspect of it that we have no choice other than to percieve subjectively.



You and me both Albert.

what i am saying though, is perception is all that can be known to exist.

to assume that which is percieved exists outside of perception is just that: an assumption.

as for claiming anything or anyone exists.. that is far too bold a claim for my tastes.

well to assume you don't exist is just as big as assumption to assume you do.
so really whether you exist is entirely irrelevant to my ability to converse with you.
and really we should continue to converse, because i am very much enjoying this discussion.

I agree. With the exception of the part about anyone existing - I still side with Descartes on this one point. We MUST be able to assert that, at the very least, the one perceiving exists, no? I don't see any way around this... I mean, unless we call into question the meaning of "to exist"... but then we are just making a linguistic workaround to avoid addressing the problem.

JBArk

Ahhhh, but Descartes confuses the thinking with the observer. The thought is not the observer...the observer is the observer. The thinking does not demonstrate the existence of the observer, the observation of the thinking demonstrates the existence of the observer.

Or, to advance the paradox...

It should not be "Cogito ergo sum" but rather, "Sum ergo sum."

Or...to put it another way..."A song is a song!"


Indeed!

That's why i cleverly subverted it and wrote perceiver

AKA observer.

AKA Me Myself and Why.

JBArk

Well, clearly, it was a subversion far too subtle for this observer

The comment about needing DMT regarding paradox is just a no true scotsman fallacy, not even worth responding to and a little sad to see here. Do we have to resort to fallacies?


Why?
I see no reason to suppose that the observer exists indendently of observation. What if observer and observed are the same? It seems to to me. Thus i cannot claim that to perceive means a perceiver exists, only that perception exists, if there is a perceiver, can it exist if there is no perception? I doubt it. If so then we cannot asset that it exists, only that perception exists.

Come on Al...lighten up. It was a joke. Or...at least my reposting was. No offense intended, apologies if any was taken


I see no one making that assertion.

The assertion, as I understand it, is that both observation and observer exist.

An observer can't exist independently of observation, as, by definition, the observer's existence is predicated on the act(s) of observation.

If observer cannot exist independent of observation, we cannot use observation to say an observer exists, because we cannot distinguish between the act of observation and the existence of the observer... so we can assert that observation exists, but i do not believe this means an observer exists, unless an observer could exist independently of observation.

I agree with you on this actually - well said. Rather than state that I necessarily exist and am observing something, I am more keen to say "observation is happening".

At a certain point, these are all semantic games, but I still find them interesting.

Slight tangent -

Consider even within the materialist paradigm (just for poops and giggles) - if everything in the universe is essentially all the same stuff, constantly reorganized into shifting forms, then I am one of those shifting forms. I don't exist independent of the universe, not at all - I am more like a verb than a noun, and so are the observations that are happening that 'I' am privy to. I have been leaning a lot in my current conceptions that there is no independent observer, no independent anything really… It takes an entire universe to make a single component - a flower doesn't terminate at the roots, it wouldn't exist without an entire universe worth of weather systems, etc.

So, if I can't be independent of everything else, then the lines between subject and object become more complicated.

wait.. how was i debating with you again?
if i said i didn't whole-heartedly agree, i would be lying.

can there be a background with no foreground? can there be an observer without observation?

i think not.

the only hang-up i guess i have would be in what sense observation "exists". sounds finnicky, i know. but how can you talk about what exists and what doesn't without defining what it means to "exist" (sorry jbark, lol)