What is 'objective reality'?

Redundantly making the same claim does not show proof. Neither does the chart that you have displayed. The compilation of data and the production of the chart could not have been accomplished independent of human thought.

 

You may claim whatever you wish, however you are wrong. The mere fact that you breath in Oxygen (which occurs without human thought) is proof that elements are independent of human thought.

In fact, there are 118 things that are independent of human thought.

Here is a list of them:

 

The autonomous functions of the body also require human thought. Subconscious thought. Originating in the same place as Conscious thought. The naming of 'oxygen' is a human thought process. You simply cannot avoid the human thought process.

 

Disingenuous ignorance is alive and well in the pride-land.

 

Without hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and a handful of trace elements, humans wouldn't even exist to create a thought.

Subjective reality doesn't exist for the simple fact that if we humans could manipulate reality with our thoughts, reality would could constantly changing and we would be like gods. Now I believe that our perceptions of reality is subjective. What I see as green may look blue to you, but the underlying reality that the light hitting my eye is 550 nm doesn't change whether I see it as green or blue.

As for those of you who like to quote quantum mechanics, a reminder. Quantum mechanics is a model of reality, it does not dictate reality. Just because a particle appears to be in two places at once or that when you look at a particle one way it appears a particular way and when you look at it another way, it appears completely different, doesn't mean that our observation is changing reality. The cat is already either alive or dead before we open the box. Our observation does nothing to change that. Schrödinger was actually criticizing certain aspects of quantum mechanics by showing how absurd it could be.

 

I don't need to read your mind to see that you do not understand the implications of your own words.

Your hypocrisy is apparent in what you have written, no need to do any mind reading.

If you do not believe objective reality exists then why don't you try jumping off the roof of a tall building and see how that works out.

If you do not return to the forum we will know objective reality exits.

 

Well....Photons do have Angular Spin Momentum.

AboveAlpha

 

Wrong. The beating of ones heart is not controlled by out thoughts. FAIL

Wrong. Subconscious thought has NOTHING to do with autonomous functions of the body. Can you get any more disingenuous here?

I guess you can be more disingenuous here.

The name of "oxygen" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that oxygen (or whatever name you wish to call it) exists, you need to breath it, and it exists outside of human thought

Here are 118 'things' that exists independent of human thought. These are the 118 known elements of he universe.

 

"reality" as you are using the term, is already constantly changing. Every time a vehicle runs down the highway, that vehicle changes the very things that it touches. It leaves things in places where they previously were not at. Reality as you reference it is in a constant state of change. If it were not, then the scientists could not with any degree of honesty suggest that the universe is expanding. Expanding is 'change'.

I can concur with that. At the same time, (as you pointed out) my perception of that 550 nm light hitting your retina does not mean that I cannot perceive it as another frequency. Retinal damage, or even retinal differentiation between one person and anther can account for such differing perceptions.

Who said anything about 'changing reality'? Is this the point now where the goal posts are shifted once again?

Well, good for Schrodinger. My point is that nothing can be done by man without the interaction of human thought. PERIOD.

 

No observer can perceive objective reality directly.

Anyone cares to challenge this, let the debate begin. I'm from the show-me state, so show-me what you got in the way of evidence that contradicts this statement.

 

A "human Objective Reality" would still only exist by subjective consensus agreements in groups of human minds, differing from culture to culture for example, or the psychological understanding of a human in question. Even the Objective standard that is referred to by "Human Objective Reality" is itself still a theoretical ideal especially when given the 'human' prefix, and open to future revisions as the paradigms of science change and knowledge advances. By that definition, the "Human Objective Reality" has changed many times in history and is likely to change in the future. An "Objective Reality" that is dependent on human understanding is absurd and inherently not objective.

This would also imply there is a dolphin objective reality, an ant objective reality, an owl objective reality...which would all be subjective to each other and are just subjective perceptions of the same Objective Reality.

The results would still exist only in the minds of the beings involved in the consensus agreements. Even if theoretically all intelligent Extra-Terrestrial beings in our universe agreed on the measurements, those agreements would still only exist in the interior space of subjective understanding.

I have to also point out, that this entire debate has been predicated on Classical Physics, and if the view of Quantum Mechanics is allowed (which emerged out of the inability of the Classical View of physics to reconcile theory with experiment) then it has to be understood by that paradigm, that no Objective Reality is even measurable (as of yet), and is only a subjective understanding of humans on the macroscopic level. The best that can be ascribed is "virtual states" or probabilities. The Objectivity of 'common sense physics' can be seen as an illusion of perception.

Again, this is not to say that an Objective Reality does not exist, but we cannot claim that one exist at this point in scientific understanding, by the view of quantum mechanics.

 

It only changes in your mind. In REALITY, nothing changes because the Universe has same amount of energy that it had before, during and after that vehicle ran down the highway. And yes, that energy exists outside of human thought. So no, reality is NOT in a constant state of change.

 

Reality for a life form is to the extent such life form can perceive it.

Because of what I do I KNOW Human Beings are NOT the only space faring intelligent race in the Universe...and in fact Human Beings are not the only intelligent beings on Earth.

Dependent upon the sensory and analytic and mathematical abilities of a Life Form....Reality and perception of it is variable.

Reality is even variable between individual people as I am quite certain my perception of reality is much different than say...Incorp. or WanWren.....did I just say the same thing? LOL!!

AboveAlpha

 

Like I said. Implications are formed in your mind by means of faulty interpretation of what I have stated.

 

Are you gonna try jumping off the tall building?

AboveAlpha

 

Wrong again. The heart rate can be slowed by taking thought: Breathing can be slowed by taking thought. Your continued rationalizations will also continue to fail.

Define 'subconscious thought' and then define 'autonomous functions'.

Not near as you in your consistent rationalizations for your behavior.

The name of 'oxygen' is not irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, then there would be no need for such a label.

Show proof that they exist, INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN THOUGHT.

 

Only in your mind.

 

Are you going to demonstrate so that I will know that I am doing it properly?

 

Absolutely....except I will be the one wearing a parachute!

I Skydive....remember?

AboveAlpha

 

Prove it. Show me a medical article that has passed peer reviewed journals that the heart rate can be slowed by thought.

Asking for definitions when YOU brought up these terms is nothing but semantic games. Take your obtuse games elsewhere.

My original statement stands: Wrong. Subconscious thought has NOTHING to do with autonomous functions of the body. Can you get any more disingenuous here?

It is extremely irrelevant. You can call it REghIklOI#3DJD for all I give a dam. With out oxygen or REghIklOI#3DJD, you will die. It is that simple.

Oxygen or REghIklOI#3DJD or whatever label you choose to give it is proof. You are free to try the experiment of holding your breath for 30 minutes to see if you need Oxygen or REghIklOI#3DJD or whatever label you choose to give it. We will all support your endeavor in this experiment.

- - - Updated - - -

If the Universe has 10 units of energy before the vehicle passes you by and then the Universe has 10 units afterwards, where is the change?

 

You want to accuse me of playing obtuse games, when you keep changing the goal posts? Why don't you just stick with the topic of the thread and show PROOF of your claims that you have made in this thread? Can you do that?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh! Then your demonstration allows you to use a parachute and I don't get to use a parachute. That is not a very ethical demonstration of 'how' you want me to jump. Try again.

 

I DID! Oxygen and the other 117 known elements are PROOF that something exists outside of independent human thought. With out those 118 elements, you and I and everything else would not exist.

And yes, you are playing obtuse bull(*)(*)(*)(*) games by claiming a chart that represents the 118 elements is man made, or asking for definitions on words when you yourself used the same exact words in the previous posts. This just shows you are here to play obtuse semantic games because you have been proven wrong that there is no 'objective reality' outside of human thought.

Now, admit you are wrong. Can you do that, or are you going to be disingenuous and continue this charade that there is nothing exists outside of independent of human thought?

 

The only thing your chart shows is an absolute dependence on human thought. As I stated and you have not been able to refute: man cannot accomplish anything independent of human thought, nor can anything exist independent of human thought. Until you can show PROOF otherwise, then you are peeing in the wind.

 

Nope...the chart is a representation of the 118 known elements that exists whether or not you or I am here. These 118 known elements will exists whether or not the chart exists. You are simply trying to use the chart as an excuse to by pass the fact that the 118 known elements actually do exists.

Also, you are now moving goal posts.

This was the original challenge:

And I did PROVE this by bring up the 118 know elements (and remember, these exists with our without a chart representing them - so saying a chart is 'absolute dependence on human thought' is nothing but a copout).

to know you are saying this:

Which is moving goal posts.

Now, admit you are wrong. Can you do that, or are you going to be disingenuous and continue this charade that nothing exists outside of independent human thought?

 

Known = thought.

You moved the goal posts as soon as you posted your first post in this thread.

Nope... all you have shown is that human thought was required to produce the chart. Now that you have proven that human thought was necessary for you to display the chart, perhaps you can take any of those supposed elements and show PROOF of their existence independent of human thought. Can you meet that challenge? Do you know what 'independent of' means?

No. That is not moving the goal posts, that is adding clarity to the goal posts. The goal posts are still standing in the same standing that they were prior to my adding a clarifying statement.

You have to be kidding. Why should their be an admission of 'wrongness' on my part, when it is you who is clearly in error. You are suggesting through your arguments that man can accomplish things such as identifying things without using thought. Now that is the point that I want you to show PROOF for. You have tried the hammer routine, you have tried the elemental chart routine, but neither amount to proof of existence through non use of human thought (independent of human thought)..