“Subjective” reality is real reality. It is the world of sensation, the world we actually experience.
“Objective” reality is a cognitive construct, something that we create artificially with our reasoning capacity, in order to make sense of the subjective world.
To say that “subjective” reality is a replica of “objective” reality is to invert this relationship. It is “objective” reality that is the replica – a cognitive model existing only in our minds (insofar as we are able to determine).
Sure, but it has nothing to do with the difference between the objective and the subjective. Both the real and the artificial flower are part of subjective reality. The real flower, though, has some verifiable characteristics that the artificial flower does not, and vice-versa.
And how are we to do that, when we have no way to verify anything about the nature of “objective” reality?
To repeat: “objective” reality is a cognitive model that we apply to subjective reality – that is, to real reality – in order to make sense out of it and predict its behavior.
All “real” reality is subjective. “Objective” reality is only hypothetical. And while the hypothesis may be useful, it is inherently unverifiable, and so has no meaning.
This is my point, if there is only one objective reality…who is the ultimate observer! Who see’s the one true objective in the reality? If there is nobody who see’s the one true objective reality, then who’s to say it exist’s? You can’t take an observer out of the equation, without an observer it is meaningless! Therefore the object is subject to our observation!
Oh, then we’re talking about two different things. As I’ve said many times, the definition of Objective that we are using on this thread is “reality independent of the mind”. If you want to say that “objectivity” is something that we create, then you are negating the axioms.
What we are talking about here is this:
What if all subjective beings in the universe went away? (So all of humankind just magically disappeared.)
What would be left?
The answer to this question I think implies whether or not you agree with the existence of Objective Reality. If you say that what would be left would = the universe (minus) humans, then you are agreeing that reality exists outside of humans. If you say that if humans were removed the universe would also just blink out of existence, then you are implying that the universe is actually ALL subjective and just a product of the human mind.
Did that help?
If you want to continue with the definition of “Objective Reality” being a human construct, then we are talking about two different things since the definitions would be vastly different.
No, I’m not. I’m talking about the same “objective” reality that you are. I’m observing that the only way in which we experience this “objective” reality is as a cognitive construct. You are looking at the same cognitive construct and assuming its literal truth, and wanting to deal with the hypothetical entity described by it.
A question that is inherently unanswerable, and therefore meaningless.
True.
Also true.
But I don’t say either of those things. I say that the question is inherently unanswerable, because the only way we have to verify anything about the reality we experience is by experiencing it, and therefore questions about that reality’s existence apart from our experience are not meaningful.
An “observer” distorts the definition of “objectivity”. As soon as you have an “observer” we are talking about subjectivity.
I agree that, by definition, there is only one Objective Reality. It is the Real Reality which there can only be one of. Subjectively, we can argue about any number of realities.
What we are talking about here is this:
What if all subjective beings in the universe went away? (So all of humankind just magically disappeared.)(no observers)
What would be left?
The answer to this question I think implies whether or not you agree with the existence of Objective Reality. If you say that what would be left would = the universe (minus) humans, then you are agreeing that reality exists outside of humans. If you say that if humans were removed the universe would also just blink out of existence, then you are implying that the universe is actually ALL subjective and just a product of the human mind.
But if you don’t have an observer, then you don’t have anything at all.
When we think of “objective” reality, we ARE thinking of an observer. What we mean by saying that something “exists,” is either 1) I see it, or 2) If you do A, B, and/or C, you’ll see it.
We don’t have any conception of something “existing” except in terms of its being observed/experienced. We don’t necessarily mean something is being experienced now, but we always mean either that, or that it could be experienced under certain conditions that don’t presently obtain.
The definition? Oh sure. The definition of the concept of objectivity is something that I subjectively experience, sure.
So we are subjectively thinking about the concept of objectivity.
And we can go on. There is likewise an Objective existence to subjective thought. But these are doubly confusing topics when we’re still trying to nail down the main definitions.
I disagree. If you don’t have an observer, then you have no subjective reality, and there is no need to differentiate between the two.
I only agree with you in that there is no such thing as “objective” reality if “subjective” reality doesn’t exist, but there is still something there. We just no longer need to differentiate it.
Since I’ve been involved in the atheism debate lately, I’ll relate it to there being no such thing as atheism without a belief in God. Without belief in god, there would be no such thing as atheism; however, this would not negate the fact that nobody believes in God, it would just make the definition of atheism meaningless.
Well, you can’t – EVER – verify the existence (or nonexistence) of objective reality. So if you don’t have an observer, and therefore don’t have subjective reality, then you have lost the only reality that is verifiable. And so you don’t have anything at all.
True, but you seem to be reversing the natural and observable relationship between subjective and objective reality. Subjective reality is the verifiable thing. We KNOW subjective reality exists. Objective reality is a hypothesis used to explain certain persistent traits in subjective reality. It is experienced as a cognitive construct; there is no way to even begin to verify whether objective reality actually exists, or is ONLY a cognitive construct.
Without subjective reality, there would be neither need, nor possibility, of the hypothesis of objective reality. And since whether objective reality “actually” exists is an inherently unanswerable, and hence meaningless question . . .
If you never opened the box, but could do so – or someone else could do so – the question remains meaningful. If the box were literally unopenable, then the question would become meaningless.
So long as a question is answerable, it has meaning, whether or not it is actually answered. If it becomes unanswerable, then it loses meaning.
If the box was impossible to open, and it was impossible to verify the existence of the ball within it through some other method – e.g., X-rays, or gravitational analysis – then for all intents and purposes the ball no longer exists. If you make the question “does the ball have any existence within the context of our experience,” then the answer is “no” and the question has meaning. But if you make the question, “does the ball have any existence even though it has none within the context of our experience,” then the question is unanswerable – inherently and in principle – and therefore meaningless.
