What is 'objective reality'?

Your confusing the "I" of the limited ego, with the "I" of base awareness. When viewed correctly, the conventional "I" or false ego-constructed identity, is seen to be as transitory as any passing state or object in the world. In Buddhism the term "anatta", or the Vedanta term "turiya" talks extensively on this and refers to the transcending and seeing the illusion of "self", which entails going outside the mind of thought itself, which entails nonconceptualization or direct seeing.

I am ok with describing it as "I" because there is a sense of authentic Identity, but the "I" of "I Am" can suggest the existence of a singular identity, which subtly implies the existence or possibility of other transcendent "I's". This is the same reason the realization of Nonduality is called nondual "not-two" and alternatively is not called "Oneness"...(though some do call it that, it's a bit less accurate).

I capitalize "Absolute Reality" to emphasize the Transcendent quality of it's nature. It's not a mental concept like deconstructionism or epistemological pluralism that once understood, can be analyzed or seen from different perspectives like an object in the world or in the mind.

The unchanging quality of it can be described as like the screen of a TV or a theater. As the movie plays through we get caught up in the story and details of the movie, get attached to one of the characters and get shocked, feel joy and pain with them...but the screen itself never moves or changes, is unaffected by whatever takes place in the movie and is rarely even noticed. Without the screen, the movie wouldn't even be possible.

All form (mental or physical) is illusionary and transitory, and is dependent on, and changed by causes and conditions. Only 'thing' that is unconditioned is Transcendent Awareness itself, it what the universe is occurring within. It is eternal, indestructible, ever-present, nondual and atemporal. Every wisdom tradition on the planet describes it in the same terms, and can be empirically reproduced by the experiment of meditative or contemplative practices with the result of complete experietial realization

 

And thus....I play here.

 

Water always freezes at the same temperature. The margin of experimental error is due to humans.

I realize you do not understand science but for the purposes of this discussion the small error in measurement does not make the measurement "arbitrary". It is not like one group measures the freezing point of water at 0 Celsius and another group measures the freezing point at 5 Celsius.

The difference is fractions of a degree so for the purposes of this discussion 0.001 is exactly the same as - 0.001.

The problem is your understanding of the term arbitrary an objective and not in the slight error in measurement.

 

The above contradicts your previous statement: " Given the same experimental conditions water will always freeze at the same temperature regardless of who is conducting the experiment. "

If differing temperatures (the result of experimental error) is obtained due to 'humans' interacting, then your original statement is not true.

In this current session of the argument from months ago, there has been no mention of 'arbitrary' other than your own input above. Which would go hand in hand with your assessment of my understanding. You truly are guessing when it comes to my understanding.

Not hardly. You stated absolutes in your original statement and then added the "margin of error" in an attempt to offset your original claim which was an absolute.

Again, you launch an attack at my understanding as opposed to providing PROOF of your claims. When did you become the official mind reader of this forum?

 

That is empirical knowledge but is not an example of "objective reality". Nowhere in the objective world does Fahrenheit or Celsius or measurement exist, or agreed upon states of water, mathematics, linguistics, interpretive modes of logic etc...the only place in the universe that those exist are in the minds of humans. Those are all subjective structures and frameworks constructed in the minds of humans and super-imposed onto objective reality. The only place those subjective agreements are located, is in subjective and inter-subjective human minds.

The objective features of the changing of molecular structure are differentiated, conceptualized, organized and given much of their actual content of interpretation and mode of agreed upon measurement and descriptional content by conceptual structures that themselves exist in nonempirical and nonsensory spaces.

Even the statement "Water always freezes at 273.15 Kelvin." is a subjective claim, that only exists within inter-subjective agreeing minds. Right when you say "Water freezes...." you are already imposing subjectivity onto objectivity. The objective world does not give us reality of the differences of different states of water...any differences are pin-pointed and agreed upon in differing languages and understood through mental terminology. Those 'differences' do not exist in the Objective World...a subjective movement of mind, logic, can notice and decide what differences are present and how to describe them...but those descriptions are projected onto objective reality.

The conceptual terms of the differences and meaning of those names of the differences....do not exist in objective nature...but created in and exist only in subjective minds.

I am not saying Objective Reality does not exist...there are "intrinsic features" in the world that allows science to "make real progress", that anchor the objective component of truth, but it always must go through the subjective understanding agreed upon mental framework. We actually do not know the true nature of the objective world without using subjective interpretation.

The belief that we can actually know objective reality without subjective interpretation is now known as "the Myth of the Given".

 

And if that subjective reality...like mathematics, tensor calculus, imaginary numbers, linguistic referents, statistical displays, cultural consensus ...cannot be found in objective reality prior to interpretation (which they are not), then they only correspond to objective reality subjectively...not objectively.

What "accurately corresponds to the observation of objective reality" is based on subjective consensus of culturally agreed upon abstract standards.

The subjective interpretation of objective reality....being subjective itself, is not found in the Objective World. It's entire substance itself is subjective and resides only in the minds of groups of humans that are subjectively agreed upon, since subjective truth is a subjective affair.

Objective Reality}------ is observed )Observation = Subjective Interpretation)-------and that inherently Subjective Interpretation forms an even more Subjective Mental Construct ...molded for storage only within the abstract mind of a human in the form of mental images and conceptualizations. The subjective mental construct never comes into contact with Objective Reality.

Also "mind" should have been added to the senses, without which no internal mental construct would be possible, and also would have enabled your syllogism to rise above a subtle bias that ignores the reality of consciousness.

 

Then again, there's things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX-XuP-SrZ4

 

Absolutely brilliant post Interwoven.

 

Yes, it's just turtles all the way down, isn't it?

I would have thought that a person so intelligent as yourself would have understood the implication of "mind" within a reference to a "mental construct".

 

...unless the thoughts are True.

Truth is the determining factor here, in every case,... not the path we might use to strive for that Truth, be it, "mathematics, tensor calculus, imaginary numbers, linguistic referents, statistical displays, cultural consensus" or religious indoctrination, etc.

 

Not so great to say we use various ways to interpret sensory inputs in order to use them for the purpose of describing what is Reality, whether we call our guess "subjective" or not.

"Subjective" reality actually means "Theory."

 

"Mind" is what we are.
We are thinking about what the senses are telling us about this one singular Reality we realize is not part of us, and can aid and/or destroy us, as if it was "god."

 

Temperature differences seem to have existed long before humans appeared 7 million years ago.

Plant life knows about the differences and they thrive in an ecology that is using temperature and seasons to govern their circadian rhythms.
The fact does appear to be that Empirical Evidence demands we agree on certain Facts-of-Life which all people can observe as the same experiments are carried out.
Our use of these Facts to model things about why and how these Facts appear produce the Theories which are NOT reality, but our deductions about it.

 

It exists in Nature, we merely label it for convenience as political animals.

 

I guess that would amount to a difference of opinion between you and him.

 

The original claim is that the result is the same within the margin of error. This is the standard of objectivity.

The result does not vary outside of the error range due to the subjectivity of the observer = Objective experimental evidence that can be verified.

You can continue to deny this accepted scientific standard if you wish but this will not change the fact that it is accepted by every Scientist on the planet.

You claim not to deny objective reality but that is exactly what you are doing. If the above standard is false, and you have not proven it false, then objective reality does not exist.

 

If you are claiming that the freezing point of water is subjective then you are claiming objective reality does not exist. Full Stop.

 

If there is a "margin of error", then there is no "always" and no "the same". Easy to understand.

There is that error range again. Error is error. Error cannot be equal to an established point "32 degrees F ". Stating 32 degrees F is not stipulating a 'margin of error'. That is an absolute.

I am not really concerned about what scientists accept. I am not a 'scientist' therefore, I am not obligated to play footsies with them. Aside from accepting what scientists say, there is the matter that the standard says 32F is the freezing point of water... That standard/absolute does not allow for "a margin of error".

In electronics, it is common place to see "margins of error" clearly included in the identification markings on electronic components, because the engineers who developed the various test instruments realized that there is no such thing as a perfect/absolute value in anything that is man made (and especially in the electronics field). Therefore a digital thermometer would be clearly marked with a margin of error. That margin of error is reflecting upon the accuracy of the instrument only and not upon the standard/absolute temperature of 32F for freezing water. Liquid filled thermometers on the other hand, do not have such markings on them and depend entirely upon the individual reading the thermometer and the accuracy that the reader can fabricate in his/her mind, which also does not reflect upon the standard/absolute of 32F.

The point is this. How can a standard be expressed as an absolute, when there is no conceivable way to make a device to measure such a thing as an absolute temperature? The 32F is an arbitrary thing and is therefore subjective. Where did the 32F come from when it was first accepted as a 'standard' (an absolute measurement)?

The above standard (being expressed as an absolute) is false as explained above.

 

That you do not understand something does not mean it is false.

The fact of the matter is that you use and rely on objective reality being true in your daily life as does every other person on the planet.

For example: If I have a vehicle that is 4 feet in width (+/- .01 foot) and I have a garage of width 6 feet (+/- .01 foot) Then that car will always be able to fit into the garage.

That is objective reality and the small error in measurement does not affect this objective reality.

Your denial of objective reality is both silly and hypocritical.

 

You still have not clearly and unambiguously and irrefutably defined "objective reality". How is it that the professionals in the world take on a different view than you regarding this subject matter and you stand in denial of what they say about 'objective reality'. Come on with that definition... the whole world is waiting to see what objective reality is according to the mind of Giftedone.

You keep asserting that I deny objective reality. OK that is your interpretation and opinion. Now in order for you to substantiate your opinion with tangible proof you are gonna have to first define what it is that you are alleging that I am denying.

 

Do you honestly view yourself as separate and different from the reality in which you exist?

 

Any "Truth Claim" itself, is dependent on it's own relation within a subjectively described context. The 'intrinsic features" in the objective world are what "truth" is anchored in, but any perception of that truth is inherently subjective.

 

I have defined it. The fact that you do not realize it is not my fault but yours.

It is objective reality that your car of width 4 feet will fit into a garage of width 6 feet.

You rely on this and other forms of objective reality on a daily basis to conduct your life so it is hypocrisy to claim that you do not believe in objective reality.

Clearly when you drive your car into your garage (or other similar action) you believe it is going to fit.

This belief is due to your reliance on objective reality.

 

Not speaking for cupid dave, but rather for my own being:

Yes! "I am" (the consciousness portion of my being) is distinctly not of this 'objective reality'.

 

I am saying to make the claim that "Water freezes at 0 Celsius" requires subjective contexts' of measurement, subjective templates, subjective numbers, subjective consensus agreement, subjective mind space, subjective descriptional referents, etc... and a subjective framework that is laid over "Objective Reality" that is not their to begin with.

Any differences in the Objective World themselves do not come with their own inherent reality, and require subjective descriptions mentally realized and projected onto them. It takes the subjective perception from a 3rd person point of view to subjectively describe Objective Reality to form a Subjective Mental Construct. Those subjectively agreed upon construct are accepted through subjective consensus and again only have reality within groups of subjective human minds.

Objective Reality is not given to us 'as is' free from the subjective filter of Interpretation...that would be a belief in the "Myth of the Given".