Gives me this mental image of a giant machine with lots of video cameras watching itself. The cameras are not separate from the machine, they are just something that it does and what they observe is itself.

Jeez, time to put the pipe down Amygdala

You can no more separate yourself from the universe than any other 'object' in the universe.
In fact you are the universe looking at itself. I mean what else could you possible be?

If two dream characters see the same thing does that make the dream reality objective? no.

Objectivity is a myth. Everything you perceive is completely and totally subjective.

The double slit experiment proved this to me beyond a shadow of a doubt and yes I know plenty of people don't want to believe that experiment shows the subjective nature of the so called 'outside' observer. I'm not going to debate that on this forum any longer.

Peace

So if a dream character declares "All things are subjective" was it an objective claim?

This is I agree with completely. But I fail to understand how you can hold these views and then claim (assuming I'm understanding correctly) that we can actually be objective. We are the dream and the dreamer at the same time... at least that is how I understand what you wrote above and it jives pretty well with Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta thought as well.

Peace

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


Try and change your feelings or opinion about gravity and thus not be subject to it's effects. See if other observers have gravity exerted upon them, find one who is not and you have made your case.


You cannot refer to a dream without saying that objective reality exists, for a dream only exists in contrast to objective reality, a dream is unreal, but if reality was a dream, a dream would be indistinguishable from reality, yet even when it appears thus, we awaken and it is not reality, likewise in the most real dream I have ever had there were significant differences between it and reality, observable differences. I actually had a dream that seemed rather real the other week, and in it I could not remember how i got to this location and it occurred to me that i might be dreaming because as real as it seemed there were issues with it when compared to reality, and I said in the dream "I hope this is a dream". Other times I have noticed when I was dreaming and knowing it was a dream, and that dreams were subjective, I acted much like a god does and changed my environment, flew around, played music and explored dreamscape etc. Yet the concept that I am dreaming in this present state affords no subjective influence, while in a dream to change my belief about my environment changes my environment, this does not occur in a waking state.



By definition no, because they are in a dream which is by definition not-real, however that only exists in contrast to what is real. However a key part of objective reality is that it is observable by all observers, hence if you were subject to gravity, but found someone who was not, then gravity would not be objective. If your emotion could change gravitation, then it would not be objective, however all evidence points to gravity being objective.

The double slit experiment is objective because A, it is consistent when observed by more than one person and B, it is consistent regardless of the opinion or emotion of the observer.

Moreover though wave/particle duality just implies that a particle is a set of criteria that when met is defined as a particle, this is another topic but does not imply subjective reality.

We can be the observer and the observation at the same time and reality can still be objective as that A it does not change with regard to emotion or belief and B it is perceived by all, our opinions may vary, our concepts and beliefs may vary, but we all stick to the ground, we all bleed and breath and are born and die. So the issue of the observer being observation is not am issue of objective reality. Likewise it can only be a dream if we contrast it to what is not dream, if we have a concept of dream we imply that objective reality exists.

I can totally agree that the distinction between particle and wave is akin to the distinction between the observed and the observer, it has to do with where we perceive boundaries and the scales we look at. But this is objectively true, it is observable and consistent.

Objective reality is observable and consistent, we cannot even have a concept of subjective, of dream, of 'unreal' without it.

If we go to the teachings of say, certain eastern philosophies, perhaps we can observe that the concept there is not that things are or are not real, but that the truth is without property, making it neither subjective nor objective, for both are properties. That is not the subject of this thread per say, but it is invoked enough to address. Take Tao, it is without property, it has a name so we can refer to it, but it is not a thing, it is not existing nor non-existing, it has no property at all.

We can even note that objective and subjective are akin to Yin and Yang and that those would inevitably arise conceptually from wuji, which is from Tao. In this sense you cannot have objectivity without subjectivity or the reverse, both arise as distinct from their togetherness as reciprocals, and their togetherness arises from a lack of property that allows the development of property...

I believe in concepts of Veda among others, including Tao, but those support the objectivity of reality and the subjectivity of observation and their interaction for me, arising from a non-state.

I guess I'll start with the OP:

Yes it does. Something that used to be heavy is now light. Happens all the time, just ask a bodybuilder. Sure we could go by the number on the scale, but numbers are still language, and language always requires interpretation before it can be useful.


Here you presume that only objective truths exist.


That's pretty clever.
1. Reality is as I believe.
2. I believe that reality is not as I believe.
therefore 3. Reality is not as I believe.

There is a contradiction between 1 and 3. I think that the problem lies with (2): Can a person truly believe that their beliefs are untrue? This may be an example of Moore's paradox.


You presume that all truths are objective. Even so, that one objective truth exists does not contradict the claim that all perceptions are subjectively true. You could claim that we perceive that one objective truth, and thus not all perceptions are subjective, but I could claim that we infer the objective truth, rather than perceiving it. Perhaps we can make a distinction:
Subjective truths are perceived. (a posteriori)
Objective truths are deduced. (a priori)

Do we deduce that subjective truths are percieved and or percieve that objective truths are deduced?

Perception of how heavy or light an object is does not for me change the weight of that object. The weight is not deduced, but is percieved, how heavy it is in relative terms to ability is deduced and not percieved. It is a conclusion, an opinion relative to perception, but requires deduction to state, while to weigh it is percieved but not deduced.

AlbertLLloyd:
"Do we deduce that subjective truths are percieved and or percieve that objective truths are deduced?

Perception of how heavy or light an object is does not for me change the weight of that object. The weight is not deduced, but is percieved, how heavy it is in relative terms to ability is deduced and not percieved. It is a conclusion, an opinion relative to perception, but requires deduction to state, while to weigh it is percieved but not deduced."



I would say that the experience of lifting the weight is perceived and the objective analysis is deduced. As you logically deduce relative wights using an abstracted standard, whereas when you pick up the weight you perceive it, no logical thought necessary. It doesn't take deduction to not be able to pick up a giant weight, you just wont be able to do it.

In the context of carrying things, I would say that the subjective experience gives better data. Alternately in dealing with materials that you can not perceive through, the objective would be a better approach.

I don't think that the subjective experience of carrying something is self negating, I do think that it has implicit objective meaning. I believe that both outlooks are more or less valuable depending on the situation.

I just read your comments on "certain eastern philosophies" and have realized that maybe you share a similar view. I at first thought you were arguing for objective reality against subjective as at points you seemed objective heavy.

I disagree.

A weight on a scale is perceived, not deduced, regardless of if the units are metric or imperial.

However to make any claim that the object is relatively heavy or light requires inference.

At least for me this is how I view it.

To clarify, for me to say reality is subjective is self contradicting, as is to say perception is objective. For me subjective and objective evoke and invoke the other and are fundamentally linked or inseparable. In particular this pertains to ontological efficacy in terms of interacting with environment(s)

In this regard objective is consistent, measurable and able to be observed in general, ergo pertaining to object.

Subjective is inconsistent, immeasurable and varies in observability, ergo pertaining to subject.

But you don't have to make a claim that the object is too heavy to lift for your experience of it to be so. Basically what I'm saying is that the lifting of the weight is a lower order of abstraction as compared to the measuring of the weight, or even the thought that you can not pick it up, which yeah you deduce.

I do see what you mean when you say that you perceive the weight on the scale, you look and see your measurement, but I still think that you use deduction, the drawing of a conclusion by reasoning in order to get a scale in the first place.

Other than that I think I'm with you.

You are right that deduction was involved in the invention of the scale.