What is 'objective reality'?

You must have overlooked these words "clearly and unambiguously and irrefutably defined "

Your example of a car and a garage are clearly a hypothetical and are therefore subjective. It has no bearing on 'reality' or "objective reality". BTW I don't have a vehicle that is 4' wide and I have no idea of where your 6' wide garage is.
I have not claimed to not believe in objective reality. That is another subjective interpretation emerging from your mind.
When driving my vehicle into a space that is designed for parking, I accept that the space is measured in such a fashion to accommodate vehicles of standard size.... and therefore I HOPE that my vehicle will fit such a space. Of course, human error could be involved and I could find that my trust and confidence (belief) in science, engineering, and transportation experts have resulted in damage to either my vehicle or property surrounding the parking area.

Well, if you want to consider science and engineering and the Dept of transportation to be objective reality, then your consideration immediately places them in a subjective characterization.

BTW: It is not nice to change the goal posts. Go back to the example of the freezing water and clear up your errors there before moving on to something new.

 

I did not change the goal posts. We are discussing objective reality and so I am giving you examples of objective reality.

You did not understand the first example so I chose another in hopes of penetrating thick skull.

Changing the goal posts is your yapping on about the entire department of transportation as if it has some meaning in the context of what is being discussed.

Bottom line is that you do in fact believe in objective reality

and this belief impacts your actions throughout your day to day life.

The ability to measure a space in such a fashion as to accommodate vehicles of a standard size is dependent on objective reality.

 

The choosing of the symbols for measurement was a subjective endeavor. The results from the use of that measurement tool however, is not subjective.

The freezing point of water is not "subjective" as it is not impacted by the observer.

 

Can you explain how it subtly implies the possibility of other transcendent "I's"?

 

I did not ask for examples. I asked for a definition that cannot be refuted and is not ambiguous. I can also present 'examples' all day long, but that also would not provide a definition. Examples are perceptions of your mind and are subsequently subjective interpretations of what you are perceiving as 'objective reality'. Switching from one subjective example to another, when even the first one did not meet with what was requested is switching the goal posts, as you have attempted to change the subject away from your original example without satisfying the requirements in that first subjective example.

So now you resort to making demeaning remarks of a personal nature in order to offset the dilemma that you are in.

The department of transportation does have plenty to do with 'parking spaces' .. As well does the Building Inspection department in making sure that all is in compliance with the 'standards'. As well does the Planning and Zoning Departments.

It is only you that has accused me of the contrary... saying before that I don't believe in 'objective reality'. You also were not able to prove that claim.

Now, getting back to the freezing water problem that you have been ranting about for the past number of months. Please go back to that last posting on that subject and continue from there by clearing up the issues that are still on the floor for discussion.

 

I agree. Water has an inherent tendency to experience a phase change from liquid to solid in the presence of a particular energy level. The fact that our methods of measurement of this temperature might suffer from slight inaccuracies or might slightly disturb the process being measured does not change this inherent nature of water. We can understand our limits to measure temperature with absolute perfection and still observe this inherent quality of water.

The "You can't prove anything!" argument grows rather stale after a few iterations. Sure, it's possible that I could place a filled ice tray into a 20 degree Fahrenheit freezer 1 million times and then on experiment number 1,000,000,001 the water would refuse to freeze.

It's possible... But I'm not betting on it.

 

What is the 'freezing point of water'? Please be as 'standard' as possible..... ya know,,, like the science classes teach to the children in school. I believe you will have to say '32 degrees Fahrenheit' or its equivalent in some other scale.

BTW: You might want to read this article concerning this matter.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns...heit-scale-why-is-32-freezing-and-212-boiling

I do hope you see the humor in that article.

 

That's a clear enough distinction. The problem with the "choosing of which measurement" is that there is an inherently "subjective" process that goes into creating those measurement systems that is unavoidable. The measurement system is based off of the presuppositions of certain philosophies (naturalism, empiricism, materialism, etc.) Which in concert can create some reliable tools for certain tasks. I think it would be a genetic fallacy to then say that any measurements taken with that system could not be objective.

But I don't think that is what he is saying. I think what he means is that there is no "symbols for measuring" a reality so therefore we can't know an objective reality. We can only really accept that it is there because otherwise we couldn't even have all of our subjective realities, that I think we all agree we have. It's like asking "is there an objective melody"? It's nonsensical because a melody cannot be quantified. You can write it out in musical notation, but those symbols are a poor representation of what it means to actually experience the melody, and there is no sensible way to quantify it. So you can say the same about reality. The symbols, models, analogies we use to try and make sense of reality are a poor representation of what reality actually is.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that his method of being aware of an objective reality outside of a subjective reality is really just a relational method. Which is interesting because some things that we take for granted, like Geometry, are based off of relational axioms.

 

You asked for a definition of objective reality and I gave you one. You have not refuted the definition I gave in any way shape or form.

If you think that a 4 foot car fitting into a 6 foot parking stall is not "objective reality" then prove this example of objective reality false by showing it is subjective.

Unfortunately for you .... You can not.

If you wish to use the freezing point of water the same applies. Prove that the freezing point of water is not objective by showing it is subjective (that somehow the freezing point of water changes based on the name of the observer)

Good luck with that.

 

When Incorp puts the ice tray into the fridge he is 100% convinced that barring a power outage or fridge malfunction the ice will freeze and that the freezing process was not affected by the name of the person putting the tray into the fridge.

Anything to the contrary is disingenuous.

 

You came into the discussion at post #48 with the introduction of an example (not a definition), then you continued by attempting to rationalize your example with no success; then you introduced another example (also not a definition); you made several demeaning remarks about my understanding (which is irrelevant as you have no proof regarding my understanding) ; now at post #86 you continue with more assaults at me rather than showing proof of your claim regarding the freezing point of water.

At post #78, however, you did finally admit that the symbols that were originally chosen for temperature measurements were arbitrary (which confirms my argument from months ago).

Now. Precisely, where is that alleged definition that you claim you gave. I purposely went back through each post in this thread that had your screen name on it and I found no such definition.

 

I was referring to the part of your discussion with Interwoven not the part with Incorporeal.

 

Show PROOF of your claim.

 

The section highlighted in red letter is, IMHO a good, close, approximation of the message I was intending. Thank you for that input. I inserted a clause (black letter insert) that I believe is important to the message you delivered.

 

I prefer to avoid the word "nature" because it is one of those loaded words like "God". We often refer to a thing that is inherent as being a part of something's "nature" even when that thing is something immaterially apart from the common vernacular meaning; "a biological nature". There should be no confusion about whether something is biologically describing nature, or conceptually describing nature. In place of nature, in this case, I would use the word material or materially. And as for "symbols for measuring [found in nature (material)], I don't think we "find" symbols. We create them. What we "find" is something that is analogous or relational to something else we more intuitively understand. We need the symbols to associate something we don't understand, with something that we better understand.

 

Madness reigns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvMX0xoiL9k

 

I apprehend what you are saying, so there is no need for us to enter into a semantics discussion. Thanks again for the input.

 

"I" can imply singular....one of many. Or a 'boundried' "I"...one inside of the universe, or inside of existence. The authentic view, is that the universe is occurring within the "I", and is the substratum of existence itself. "I" can also imply an alone I, an I of singular self, with room for something to come along in addition to that "I". It is transcendent reality, and all paradoxes are effortlessly understood from the viewpoint of the "I" But in casual usage, can easily shape an incorrect mental image. Basically the transcendent "I" can be confused with the conventional everyday "I" of the ego, with its limited qualities. Yet, all descriptions will inevitably fall short..."the Tao that can be spoken of, is not the true Tao".

 

Correct

The results exist within the consensus of a group of human minds only, and not in the Objective World. That would be projecting Subjectivity onto Objectivity, and is perfectly ok and necessary, but is not itself a part of the Objective World.

Although that is entirely theoretical, I agree... as long as it's clear that any human understanding of it would exist only in the Subjective Reality of mind.

 

So the "I" is a metaphor (or direct reference) for "Tao". The "I" that can be spoken of, is not the true "I". You've described distinct variations of "I's" but still have not explained why these distinct "I's" imply other "I's". Or are you just presupposing "I's" to claim the answer?

The I, one of many, does not explain why an I is inside a universe, which is inside an I. This is unresolved. You can accept both, but can't offer an answer to either. Just say that your philosophy is one of acceptance and you can avoid the tautology.

 

I gave you an example of objective reality = the fact that a car of width 4 feet fits into a garage of width 6 feet.

This fact is not subject to the observer and yields a repeatable result.

Defn: Objective reality is something that yields the same repeatable result and is not subject to the subjective perception of the observer = the result does not change based on the perception of the observer, or based on the act of observation.

- - - Updated - - -

I get that but Interwoven was interjecting into a convo between me and Incorp.

I am not interested in an ontological discussion of existentialism.

 

You want me to prove that when you put water into a freezer that it freezes ?

Would you also like me to prove to you that a circle is round ?

 

Fine .. put a constraint on the definition as applicable to the human mind and change my previous claim to "human objective reality".

I would argue however, that an alien would still get the same result from use of a ruler as a human which further extends the lack of subjectivity of this measuring tool.

 

That would of course require the presumption that the alien does not have a subjective capability.

 

Why ? How would this make the Alien get a different result ?