There Are No Such Things As Objects

[Advocate]

Objects are mental things which have a physical correlate. Likewise "substrate", but the one is more specific, tangible, and manipulable and the other less effible, more primal, smaller.

[popeye1945]

There are no such things as objects, there are but conditions within conditions and that which is commonly called an object is the relation between conditions; object is manifest due to the nature of the conditions involved. There are objects only to a subject condition as it is affected by another condition or conditions. Nothing can exist in this manner, but it is relative to another condition and this field of endlessness condition might be called the non-totality. This non-totality is never closed, never contained, and never a thing. It is an endless condition, a dreamy moving condition, only the illusion/object is the grasp of the ring. Object you might say is a biological condition's reaction to condition/s. What is considered the universe is but condition ever interconnected in its own endlessness.

i.e. What we seem to be saying is that "objects" are what we say they are. They are nominated by out interests. In this way they are a derivative of the subject. In fact, so is everything pretty much from our own POV.
This thinking, though, ought to result in saying that "objects" do not exist, but for us to reflect upon just how they exist, what is it to say "objective" and "subjective". And the answer seems to be a thing which is seen subjectively can become an "object" where others agree as to its value and existence.
It's about agreement with other people.
It's a clearer way of thinking about objects as most people seem to arrive by different means and simply assume that an object is a thing that exists regardless of our observation of it.
This is plausible and an attractive proposition, and it is often reinforced with experience such as when new exo-planets are found or simply when you look under a rock to find a bug and correctly assert that it already existed before you lifted the rock.
There is no problem with that.
The problem comes when someone believes in something agreed by others but NONE of them have any evidence for such a thing..

It is worth remembering that all objects are selections from what we are interested in. They are not simply "objectively" true, but have come within our purview and within the limits of our perception. For that reason, all things thought of as objective are best described as "inter-subjective".

There are many variations of the organic patterns of life forms but in essence, they differ only in structure and form and are defined by the niches they have adapted to occupy. I think of these as differing conditions and a subject conditions structure and form determine the objects that manifest for it. Their essence is defined as life itself a manifest condition within this non-totality. As you've said, to the individual experience is truth/object but to the group it is agreement, all beings of the same condition effected by the same context of conditions, this is the subjective collective of a common condition. The odd man out would be one who's biology/condition has been altered through illness, injury or perhaps drugs then the subjects biology/condition would give a differing readout; for apparent reality seems as it does due to the state/nature of the condition which is having the experience. In other words, apparent reality is biology/condition dependent, or biology is a condition that processes the physical world/non-totality.

This agreement between common conditions/subjects again is dependent on the ability of those common conditions/subjects to experience through its commonality, for that which is deemed object/condition is in fact a common biological reaction/s to the same common conditions they are exposed to. Objects/conditions are what we say they are to a common collective of subjects/conditions having a common experience through a common biology/condition, they are the effect on biology/condition to the environment of a condition or conditions. Object/conditions are not of what interests us but are of what alterations those conditions make to the condition of our biology for object is biological reaction and thus a biological readout of our bodily experiences. At the same time all conditions of non-totality are constantly exchanging electrons and other elementary particles in maintaining the patterns of their conditions, thus there is no such thing as independent existence for each condition is dependent upon all other conditions of this non-duality into which all conditions return as to indigents of this soup of non-totality, as Nietzsche would say, for the eternal return.

[popeye1945]

Objects are mental things which have a physical correlation. Likewise, "substrate", but the one is more specific, tangible, and manipulable and the other less affable, more primal, smaller.

Objects are the alterations energies make to our biological condition. Think of consciousness as full body consciousness, the reading of these alterations to our biological condition are objects to our biological consciousness. They are biological readouts of our reactions to the conditions of non-totality.

[popeye1945]

A further thought which might clarify, in what is called general systems theory it is said that an object is greater than the sum of its parts, which is true in a sense, but much like a complex concept is greater than the sum of ideas that constitute said complexity. It also says that the parts of a whole/object are themselves wholes, which is nonsense, there are no wholes; there are only lesser and greater conditions of complexity and again nothing exists independently and nothing exists unchanged. A condition is always exchanging its elements with its surroundings in maintaining its condition and contributing to the maintenance of other conditions. A condition is an object only to a subject condition in the way it affects the biological condition of the said subject. One might consider the holy grail that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light which the introduction of quantum entanglement challenges. Entanglement happens thousands of times faster than the speed of light or is possibly instantaneous how could this be? What if this un-totality, open condition, infinite and everlasting is entirely connected so what you do to any area in question is done to the entire condition as open as it is? You are then embraced in an infinite condition that behaves as an infinite everlasting connectedness. Again, there is no such thing as independent existence, no such thing as separateness.