You're not looking at Objectivity correctly. It's not about looking what does not exist, but about what does already exist, objectively. You really need to plant the premise in your mind, that sugar, as a chemical compound, exists without your subjective experience. Pretend like you've never tasted sugar and never will. Does your ignorance then, in retrospect, precede the existence of sugar, as an experience, or as a chemical compound? No, because it existed before you were ever aware of it, and it will exist while you are unconscious, and long after you or anybody else lived and died.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:42 pmIt's not a relationship if the sugar was never experienced. The experience is the relationship. So I don't see how something that doesn't exist can be objective. If no observers existed then sugar would just be sugar and there would never be any sweetness.
Everything is a relationship - including sugar. Sugar is a molecule and molecules are a relationship between atoms. Atoms are relationships between protons and electrons, and protons are a relationship between quarks. We will find that quarks are also a relationship, so it is relationships all the way down. There never is anything "physical", just relationships, process, or information all the way down.
So if there aren't any observers then the relationship between sugar and observers does not exist and therefore cannot be objective. It makes no sense to say that something that does not exist is objective.
The worlds is not contingent upon our awareness. Our awareness is contingent upon the world.
They can also tell the truth. My knowledge comes from my experiences and others' experiences. My knowledge comes from your experiences, right now, as you communicate to me.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:42 pmWhich you only experience indirectly through their actions or words, but they can lie. So, like I said, all of your knowledge comes from your experiences.
Everything is a matter of belief, especially knowledge.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:42 pmI don't see how any of this answers my question about what form your knowledge takes. How do you know that you know anything? What are you referring to when you say "I know..."
Potential, hypothetical, and theoretical are just ideas that stem from our ignorance. They are imaginary concepts that have no reality outside of our minds. Either processes interact or they don't. If they don't then those interactions do not exist. There is no potential, only what exists. To say that there is potential is to just be saying you are ignorant to the facts what is, or will be the case. What will be the case is dependent upon what currently is the case. What is, what has been, or what will be has already been determined and our knowledge of it all is lacking, so it seems like there are probabilities, randomness and potential because we are ignorant of what is, what has been, and what will be. This is basic Determinism.
There is no 100% certain belief—insuchthat a belief is Absolutely True, Omniscient. Everything can be doubted, rejected by the mind, which is the basis of Theory. When I say "I know", myself and most people mean, I believe at 99.999% or 95% or 90%. I'm pretty sure of this information. Or I'm certain (above 90%) of this information. Or I will act on this information. Certainty, knowledge, belief, are ranges of probability. What people consider "100% true", are their core beliefs, values. These are more dangerous, because they're dogmatic. People presume as-if their knowledge is 100%. That's the difference between a closed-mind (not accepting new information) versus an open-mind.
Knowledge, to me, represents tested-tried-and-true beliefs. It doesn't mean they're 100%, but they're above 90% at least. I act on my knowledge, everyday. Everybody does.
You're missing the point. How do people intuit what each-other means? How do people judge and decide-upon intentions? That has little to do with language...because it happens before language. It happens before a stranger speaks to you or I. You look at somebody, and your mind immediately forms unconscious and subconscious biases. For example, most people presume those in their own neighborhood, street, block, will speak their same language. So it can be surprising when somebody arrives who does not.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 8:52 amNo they aren't. Words are composed of scribbles or sounds. You see and hear them just like you can see and hear a train coming down the tracks. You learn a language by observing how it is used and then testing it out yourself and making adjustments based on your visual and auditory feedback. If languages were not objective then there would be no way we could translate one language to another, but we can, and do. Sure, there will be trends in certain groups to use an existing language differently, but we can still translate what they mean to other words, or else what are they actually saying? We all share the same world, so if we expect to communicate with each other about our experiences of this shared world, then we need to agree on the scribbles and sounds being used to do just that. If we are both using language subjectively then we are essentially talking past each other.
Just because language was used one way "originally", doesn't mean that we can't, or haven't, changed its use to reflect our current understanding of the world. We don't even need to change the language or come up with new words to reflect our new knowledge that our beliefs are about the world, not actually the world. Instead of saying "All Republicans are evil", we say, "I believe all Republicans are evil", and "All Republicans are evil" can be taken as shorthand for "I believe all Republicans are evil". In these cases we are talking about our beliefs, not the things we have beliefs about, which could be mistaken and proven wrong with other observations. Knowledge and beliefs are established by past observations and can change with new observations.
Communication is the medium we use to intuit meaning between peoples/Subjects.
What is intuited, are the Objects referred to by and through language. How people understand that, also demonstrates their understanding of Objectivity in general.
That's not true. People often speak about what they have not experienced.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 8:52 amI never said that objects are distinct from nature. I hope I have made the point that nothing is distinct from nature, including our beliefs and experiences.
Any object that is distinct from our understanding and experience is to just say that there are things in the world that our limited observations can access. We cannot even talk about such things as we can only talk about what we have experienced, not what we haven't.
No, the point I was/am making, is that an object that exists, and is never experienced, demonstrates the S-O distinction, and how vital it is to understand the difference. You and I can use what we do know about Existence, the Universe, Physics, Chemical compositions, science, logic, reason, intuition...we can use it all, to reach out beyond what we directly experience, here and now. We can imagine that 10,000 years ago, Earth was probably this or that way. We can imagine that, across the galaxy, moons, stars, and planets are somewhat like our own.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:42 pmThere are parts of the universe that do not interact with other parts, but that doesn't mean that because I can image that they do that there is any actual potential that they will. My only point here is we can only ever talk about our experiences and our experiences are relationships with other objects. Just because some object hasn't been experienced doesn't mean it is different than objects that have. We're just talking about different relationships. There is nothing special about experiences either as they are just a type of relationship, and everything is a relationship. So the S-O distinction is meaningless because there is nothing special about unexperienced and experienced objects (relationships) - just different types of relationships.
Or better yet, we can imagine that long after we die, 10,000 years from now, our lives, our experiences, the world as we experience now, were certainly true, and real, and that just because those in the future didn't experience it, yet we now it happens right now. And because of this, just as any person can be as sure of their own Subjectivity, they too can be sure Objectively by the inverse relationship.
Whatever happens right now, is permanent, cannot be deleted or removed, and is as distinct as any other time and moment in Existence.
Because matter cannot be created; and it cannot be destroyed.
From my perspective, as I grow older, I place reality far less in the Subject, and far more in the Object, than I had before...Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:42 pmI don't believe reality is based on our subjectivity. I believe that reality is based on relationships of which our minds, or experiences are just one type of relationship. I also use the terms "process" or "information". Information includes the notion of aboutness. Our experiences are instinctively understood to be about the world. Effects are about their causes. Information is every where causes leave effects. Our experiences and beliefs are both effects of prior causes and causes of the effects they leave in the world.