What is 'objective reality'?

I had made comments in another forum which seemingly no-one wanted to take to task. I presume that non-responsiveness was perhaps due to no-one wanting to take that thread off topic. So, I am quoting that post as an introduction to this new thread.

Hopefully the forum might be able to come to some mutual consensus about what is 'objective reality' as it is so frequently used on this forum section.

" Originally Posted by Incorporeal

Of course, that could mean that there is no PROOF of anything relating to either the physical realm or the spiritual realm, if in fact either of them exists."

Originally Posted by Gorn Captain
If Incorporeal even TRIES to deny that he denies objective reality?"


First: I did not mention "objective reality" in the quote you provided. I did mention "physical realm". So based on that set of facts, I have to conclude that you are defining "objective reality" to mean "physical realm". I also have to conclude that such definition would be a definition of your own making considering that "objective reality" as a compound term is not found in the dictionary. As single and separate words the two words can be found but would depend on the individual readers to determine which definitions should apply and be in context with the definitions of the other word. However, in all fairness, you do have the opportunity now to state precisely what definition you are wanting to use for the term "objective reality".

"objective reality" is a philosophical term. Please provide the indisputable, unequivocal, irrefutable definition of "objective reality". While you are at it, also provide the definitions of "physical realm" and "spiritual realm". You might even want to give consideration to the "realm of science" and the meanings of "realm" www.thefreedictionary.com/realm ."

 

http://www.ahalmaas.com/glossary/objective-reality
We are using the term objective reality in contrast to subjective reality, which is reality seen through our inner mental filters that are shaped by our past conditioning. Objective reality is how things really are. Although it is possible to perceive objectively, we cannot take in the totality of reality and say anything about it; we can only point to some of its characteristics.

Here is one person's take.
It is a philosophical term, so that means it will mean something different to each person.
But IMO, what can be known with the 5 senses and is physical. At least my 1st stab.

 

pragmatophobia

fear of reality

 

In essence then you are declaring that objective reality is an incomplete subjective rendering of what has been perceived? If then the perception is incomplete, then how can it be said that "reality is how things really are"... remember how you declared above that "we cannot take in the totality of reality and say anything about it; we can only point to some of its characteristics."

If a person (any person) cannot take in the totality of reality, then what justification does that person have in ruling out something which might well be there? Do all people have the same intelligence quotient? Is it possible for one person to be the epitome of brilliance in, say, biology, and at the same time be relatively retarded when it comes to masonry? Those are all elementary example considerations of what is to be found in reality but nowhere near exclusive of other things.

At any rate. Objective reality. Somewhere out there in the deepest part of the universe, is a planet which man has never seen (even with the strongestt of telescopes). Well, if man has never seen that planet, how can man come to the conclusion that there are more than what he has seen? For a man to suggest that the probability is great based on what man has seen, is a leap of faith on the part of that man. The probability is nothing more than a computation coming from the mind of man and is therefore subjective.

BTW: His bio is quite interesting...http://www.ahalmaas.com/bio/god-as-essence

 

An objective reality would be the fact that most people who know your persona do not reply to you due to not seeing your comments because of the ignore function.

A subjective reality would be your perception that they do not comment or reply because you believe they do not wish to take something off topic.

Objectively would be dealing with those things that actually exist, whereas subjectively deals with things as someone "Thinks" they are.

 

Objective reality is a real, physical reality that exists even outside being observed by consciousness. It is the default philosophy of virtually everyone, and it is wrong. Quantum Mechanics clearly demonstrates that observation is what causes "reality" to be real. Absent observation, it's just a probability matrix.

So when a dead tree falls in a dead woods, not only does it not make a sound, it didn't actually fall. It only "probably" fell, and we won't know until some observation is made.

 

Your opinions are duly noted and filed. I will note however, that apparently you are not one of those that have placed my presence on 'ignore' (evidenced by you opening this thread to read it). therefore, I can safely conclude that you do find some merit in the things that I post and I appreciate you taking the time to participate in this thread. On your closing statement, I would like to point out, that regardless of what a person is perceiving, that perception is assimilated in the mind of that person and is therefore subjective in its interpretation. So, if you see a juicy red apple your mind processes it in that manner. However, the core of that apple might be filled with worms. Be careful of what you bite.

 

Actually...there is a "View Post" button that allows me to see your spewings for entertainment....pretty cool idea.

 

Nature is more objective than Nurture.

 

Well, that is cool also... at least your curiosity seems to keep you in the cabinet.

 

Observer is mandatory... I like that concept. That would imply that the 'big bang' never actually took place and that all that has been theorized about such an event is sheer speculation because there was no observer.

 

What you responded to wasn't mine, but ahalmaas.
No one can rule anything out that isn't there. But one doesn't have to give it any thought either. For if one doesn't know about something then to them it really doesn't exist.
Kinda like, you can't miss something you've never had.

 

Now that I can agree with. Your second sentence above stresses the point that I have been attempting to make for quite some time, but regardless of how I state that same concept, it seems that there is nothing in response but ridicule. Knowing is the foundation of existence as perceived by the individual. Knowing something implies that there is a positive knowledge. Does that positive knowledge have a requirement of being attained through the rigor of formal education (ya know college degrees and all that stuff)? Hmmm?

BTW: I have 2 1/2 days before I have to get back to work, so I will take the time to read all of his material this weekend. Thanks for the link... I truly like what I have seen there so far.

 

We cannot perceive objective reality. All we know about reality is what our senses tell us and our fellow human beings agree upon. Elements are made up of atoms which we cannot see or touch and those atoms are made up of smaller "particles" which may or may not be solid. The double-slit experiment seems to show that perception collapses wave forms into what we expect to perceive.

Therefore, our 'reality' is actually perception obtained from the nerve endings present in our bodies that transfer electrical impulses to our brain which has been educated by other humans that a certain perception is a certain 'object.'

 

Well, that (the above writing) must truly be your perception of 'objective reality'.

 

I have to admit, it was just a find with a quick google. I never gave objective reality any thought before.
As far as the ridicule, it is because there is no objective reality or subjective reality. 'sky fairy' = 'pink unicorn' to many.
No background, experience, teaching for some. And many others, having been in the religion since birth, had many questions, like myself, and never got any real good answers and still missing 'experience' of a mystery. Well, most of us have had some experience that can't be explained.

 

Exactly....

 

From "our" human perspective, it did. We can, and have, observed the after affects. But it was simply the boot process of the digital universe. Put in a trillion trillion trillion tons of hydrogen, a trillion tons of helium, and a pinch of lithium, add gravity, strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, and the rest of the laws of physics (all calculated, not actualized), and create a virtual reality that is guaranteed to eventually evolve "life" that consciousness can "inhabit".

 

And how deeply and earnestly was an answer to that 'experience that can't be explained' sought out? How many failures did Edison make before he found the right combination to the light bulb that you use in your table lamp?

 

No! Those "after effects" is what is interpreted as being after effects of a 'big bang'. That is sort of like trying to reverse engineer the universe. Let me know when you find out the correct methodology then I might be able to recreate a universe of my own design.

"vir·tu·al (vûrch-l)adj.1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.
2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text."

Anything is possible in the imagination station of the mind.

 

In my youth, pretty deep.

 

Then perhaps the drudgery and luxury of life took center stage of your mind and you quit looking. I am well aware of how that works..

 

I started broadening my perspective outside just christianity. As I started wondering about other religions and why, how, etc.

 

I did the same thing.. in fact I was once on a quest to prove the 'Bible' wrong and I failed. Studied many other religions and learned a lot about them, but they all failed to compel my mind to accept what they offered as true.

 

I started out opposite. To prove the bible correct. And I still can't prove it correct. I now say, if there is a God, it is more than just the abrahamic. More than just what the bible says.