East Meets West Logic...

[austintorn@aol.com]

Curiosity is connected with the ability to ignore superfluous information and with flow states with challenging activities that maintains deeply focused concentration and a strong sense of personal control. —Mikal

This is normal dopamine acting upon us so that one can note what is truly novel or ongoing (assuming no high ADD in one to over-focus too much on what is not of the main event).

[SteveA]

Mikal, my thread has shown both uses since I started posting last year. I, nor any scientist I know is denying the subjective in us all. It's just the fact that objectivity can just as easily see, use and interpret ideas of the subjective mind, as does the subjective, about itself. The problem arises when a scientific basis of knowledge is required__Thus requiring an objective scientific methodology, which is required to be free of subjective belief and opinion, to arrive at best logically and mathematically judged outcomes. If you were to read the article above I posted about hermeneutics, you'd see both sides discussed, from the view favoring the subjective, as pertains to life sciences, just as Aristotle suggested long ago, as some vague knowledge ideas must be...

This subjective/objective battle has been raging for over 100 years, in the philosophies and sciences__It's not settled yet, but scientists lean to the objective over the subjective, as it more accurately reflects the scientific methodology, necessary for the hard sciences... Even philosophy still leans more to the objective authors being in far larger number, than the subjective authors... And most serious subjective authors attempt to objectify the subjective, to allow it validity in the scientific community... They've been unable to develop a self-standing validity method for the subjective ideas and theories__yet__thus all depend on the objective validity methods, even of the subjective...

Just the way it is...

It seems that there is no way to differentiate between objective and subjectivity other than potentially as democratic agreement or enforcing some mimicry of it, and neither of those are even always the case.

For example, if you see an apple fall out of a tree and two other people are watching but one person did not see it, then how do you determine what's the "true objective reality"?

I believe that the objective and subjective realities are identical - you saw an apple fall out of a tree and one person claimed to have seen it and the other didn't. That's what was actually verified. Of course we could then proceed to wonder what caused the discrepancy or what motivated the censure taking etc., but the most "precise reality" is what you (or whatever someone else happened to witness) actually experienced/saw etc. and resolving these discrepancies, not masking them over, is what science is about.

We should be able to verify first hand, should we be able to and desire, whatever findings "science" claims (not that I mean to imply science actually has a mouth and claims things ... obviously I'm just saying that whatever someone claims to be representative of science needs to be verifiable and accurately explain things for others as well, otherwise we lose the meaning of the word and it could just be rumor or superstition etc.).

In a similar sense, if someone felt certain that an apple did not fall out of the tree, then I don't believe they should use democratic consensus and try to believe that 2 out of 3 determines what was true. If that was the standard for science, we'd probably still be stuck with beliefs that existed thousands of years ago as everyone would feel obligated to "join the club" (this has actually occurred many times in history, IMO).

So anyway, I would agree that objective and subjective realities are in many ways indistinguishable as someone can't step outside their body and mind etc. and see what 'really' exists (and in that case, would that actually be the 'reality' anyway? I'd assume they simply imagined some 3rd person perspective as I've never seen anyone in a 3rd person perspective before )

So sure, if you want to claim that every should be objective, then fine, we're all objective.

I tend to believe that what you're looking for is actually agreement though and not necessarily even something that can be mutually agreed upon but instead that the agreement is specifically in some manner you've determined to be "objectively true" and that's where I see the conflict and then if we move toward ideas of legislation or legal enforcement, then obviously we have problems. If one person does not see an apple fall, that doesn't imply it should be handled as sedition (yes, I'm referencing the comment you made to Melanie), even if someone believes to have proven that it could not have fallen.

Notice that much progress has been made in discovering new physical properties when things like relative differences between observational frameworks (Relativity) or when subjective differences in measurements occur (Quantum Mechanics). If we had impeded these differences then we'd be missing out on a lot of new phenomenon.

It seems less valuable to try to prove what is and more valuable to work with the realm of "what can be" and it's important in this respect to pay attention to the differences in observations and learn to integrate a lot of diverse forms of information together. If something doesn't fit, there's a reason and occasionally it can be intentional misrepresentation, though even in that, there are still reasons why something is presented in some manner versus alternatives, and when it's not a case of misrepresentation but a truth that's been overlooked, that's when the real insights occur and new fields open up ... that's when science is really doing its job and not simply reinventing the wheel.

[austintorn@aol.com]

For example, if you see an apple fall out of a tree and two other people are watching but one person did not see it, then how do you determine what's the "true objective reality"? — Steve

Do it repeatedly, getting them all to focus, making sure they can all see well, have more than 3 people, use descendants of Newton, etc.

[G_burnett]

May I answer your question Lorrina...? As far as I know, there's nothing stopping anyone from choosing either state of mind... Though, I would advise to use the state of mind you are comfortable with in most life actions and inter-actions, yet still realizing the objective ratio-logical and other such mathematical and logical states should be used in the scientific threads, or at least respecting them, which you seem to always achieve. I don't see as you have much trouble being quite logical, naturally__though, I think you may think you're being subjective, as you've often stated. I see you as being more objective than subjective, which you may just have not given much thought to__Many do not...

I think you were born objective, fully recognizing the subjective, and switching where appropriate... Just my opinion...

Btw, my objectivity is by pure choice...

This is my revised axiom introduction on my toe paper ... hope it is enjoyable kind regards graham

Introduction
There is one observation all life partakes in. The observation made does not matter if the individual life form can express response to the observation. The observation is not a lessening effect of the event as one is taking part in the observation, it does not change because one is observing. Nor does the observation of the event depend on the event if it is stopped early or lasts longer in our vanity of a time value or dimension in time being given. Thus the observation made is in a very personal sense of the being and as postulated all life will experience.
This said, demands the define, of the term life. This said about life above establishes the objective once an individual persona observation so made. We are alive is the observation and the demand thus is why such is the state of exist we find ourselves in and able to make the observation. The answers to life meaning can not be found by reasons of subjectivity or spite. The objective to be reality reached, is an objective in the physic reality despite subjectivity.
No one has ever looked at the event worthy or complete to what would be of my acceptance of such finding an meaningful somehow by these other expert postulations. Most I have read or listened to over the years of ponder have all gone on to a point of it ‘just is’ thus, one state, and one I refused to accept. Physicist study to the basic axiom that all truth change, make reading the reality difficult and time related or subjective.
In that refusal, the denial to be subjective relative in my ponder to a just is universe, my answer is this paper based on the simple and clarity of a geometric reality. The reality to offer the reader a causal of singularity of observable energy effect by a charged polar designation as it would effect. In the simple clarity I am about to describe the heartbeat of the universe. The pulse singularity event of all life begin and offer a pictorial structure to causal of pulse, an event that connects all life despite position and time from the beginning in a cyclic universe independent of time or position in the cycle.
The negative forward state of a fundamental particle description in the modern standard in a just is state of exist promoted by other is debunked as the structure described herein will have the needed reality of a bi-pole charge when yet only observed as a singularity state and platform of view taken. It will explain the problem of the singularity observation and gives reason of review to the singularity acceptance of state in the norm accepted standard of physics. The surprise will be that indeed the blinders were on when the solid state universe was dismissed in subjectivity guessing and denial of the mono-polarity exist.
The written presentation is an attempt to promote the advanced physic reality to such a singularity standard view. Why we ponder the singularity exist based on observable single polar state and thus I begin with the electron. It is novel and a new addition to the geometric reality and adds to clarity in the reality standard of geometry based on the intuitive logic of personal reasoning taken one-step more to advance the understanding of life and the whole of the universe.
The conclusions in the simple will explain the causal of self-generated pulse. This is the reality transferred up the line from the small to big. It will in fact and axiom give the reader clarity to what constitutes the pulse of the universe, the very observable and felt by all life, everywhere, that has ever existed or will, e.g. “the beat of the heart.”
Thus, this paper will give the reader understanding in my personal hope in a clear manner of pictorial visuals and supportive links to the very heartbeat of the universe. Where Relativity stopped in the small and QT begins is where this presentation begins and concludes in the marriage of QT and Relativity. Not only will one find solace in understanding the background Gamma radiation in a new light, but gravity itself develops in the pictorial.

as i work on it it will probly change a bit of course kind regards graham

[SteveA]

For example, if you see an apple fall out of a tree and two other people are watching but one person did not see it, then how do you determine what's the "true objective reality"? — Steve

Do it repeatedly, getting them all to focus, making sure they can all see well, have more than 3 people, use descendants of Newton, etc.

Yes, we should expect that to work and if they can agree then we can obviously call it objective with few problems (as I've said before in many ways objectivity is synonymous with perceived agreement).

If some group did not consistently see it then I'd consider the "objective" view to be that there are subjective differences (or maybe reasons to misrepresent things).

If there was some inconsistent mixture of consensus then, the same as the above it would again be that whatever situation subjectively observed would determine what's considered to be objective (in this case someone might see the apple fall every time and wonder why the confusion regarding claims by others).

Notice that all of these still require a subjective judgment as to what exists objectively and whether something is considered objective or subjective didn't change what appeared to occur nor any fundamental beliefs regarding them. In other words, there was nothing of value added by calling something objective or subjective beyond expressing the possibility or lack of consensus between people regarding it.

If someone said that the Moon was objectively colored orange, the only difference between that and just saying the Moon is orange is that the claim that it is objective implies some form of consensus and someone might assume that this means if they don't see it the same way then they must be "wrong" in a democratic sense.

This really appears to have no importance beyond potentially attempting to define science democratically, which appears to serve little purpose. If we expected some of the great insights in history to have been subjected to democratic pressures, we'd be missing a lot as those views were generally not considered objectively true at the time.

So instead of saying that something is subjective or objective it would appear more informationaly relevant to describe what consensus exists between views and, of course, this information is best collected first hand (second hand accounts can be distorted or misleading).

[labelwench]

As DNA is unique to each individual, I would suggest that this could be the grounds for an hypothesis that each person's brain may also function uniquely, even when people are exposed to identical circumstances and opportunities.

The biological form is nearly identical, and yet the applications could be widely divergent.

We demonstrate the ability to make decisions, and yet the process of arriving at each decision will vary depending on whether we use objective or subjective data in our reasoning.

When our genotype predisposes us to one preference and our life experience or phenotype has conditioned us otherwise, I would expect the decisions made to be variable and inconsistent.

Where one is operating from their genetic bias and their conditioning has been positively reinforcing, I would hypothesize consistent decision making.

Horses prefer consistency, and in my personal experience, so do many people.

[G_burnett]

this is the social pathic condition .. IMHO g.

As DNA is unique to each individual, I would suggest that this could be the grounds for an hypothesis that each person's brain may also function uniquely, even when people are exposed to identical circumstances and opportunities.

The biological form is nearly identical, and yet the applications could be widely divergent.

We demonstrate the ability to make decisions, and yet the process of arriving at each decision will vary depending on whether we use objective or subjective data in our reasoning.

When our genotype predisposes us to one preference and our life experience or phenotype has conditioned us otherwise, I would expect the decisions made to be variable and inconsistent.

Where one is operating from their genetic bias and their conditioning has been positively reinforcing, I would hypothesize consistent decision making.

Horses prefer consistency, and in my personal experience, so do many people.

[Mikal]

Mikal, my thread has shown both uses since I started posting last year. I, nor any scientist I know is denying the subjective in us all. It's just the fact that objectivity can just as easily see, use and interpret ideas of the subjective mind, as does the subjective, about itself. The problem arises when a scientific basis of knowledge is required__Thus requiring an objective scientific methodology, which is required to be free of subjective belief and opinion, to arrive at best logically and mathematically judged outcomes. If you were to read the article above I posted about hermeneutics, you'd see both sides discussed, from the view favoring the subjective, as pertains to life sciences, just as Aristotle suggested long ago, as some vague knowledge ideas must be...

This subjective/objective battle has been raging for over 100 years, in the philosophies and sciences__It's not settled yet, but scientists lean to the objective over the subjective, as it more accurately reflects the scientific methodology, necessary for the hard sciences... Even philosophy still leans more to the objective authors being in far larger number, than the subjective authors... And most serious subjective authors attempt to objectify the subjective, to allow it validity in the scientific community... They've been unable to develop a self-standing validity method for the subjective ideas and theories__yet__thus all depend on the objective validity methods, even of the subjective...

Just the way it is...

Thank you Lloyd....I do see Scientists as very curious, very involved in their scientific activities and as I see validity in the study I just feel we should realize that the subjective is like the objective in that both hold possibilities for positive and negative expression. Nothing is all bad and should not be related as so...


Regards Mikal

[labelwench]

this is the social pathic condition .. IMHO g.

There is more than one potential set of conditions described in my post.

Could you elaborate further as to which condition you reference?

[Mikal]

Curiosity is connected with the ability to ignore superfluous information and with flow states with challenging activities that maintains deeply focused concentration and a strong sense of personal control. —Mikal

This is normal dopamine acting upon us so that one can note what is truly novel or ongoing (assuming no high ADD in one to over-focus too much on what is not of the main event).

Typical new modern day thought Austin! Taking people to just be chemicals in a brain is a part of the present elite need to "depersonalize people" to have no value of themselves as something deeper and more meaningful. I don't need to say anything further as you well know I am quite aware of all the needs a Therapeutic society must instil in order to dominate society.


Regards Mikal