The Objective Realm

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivity is not a matter of categorical imperative, water = h2o, or 1+1=2.

Instead, Objectivity is a matter of logical deduction, that some condition or set is true for All space and time, and cannot be (subjectively) refuted.

Are you insisting 'water is H20' and all scientific facts are not objective as qualified to a specific human-based FSK?

Logical deduction is never idiot proof, note GIGO [Garbage in, Garbage Out] within deduction.
As such what is critical is whatever goes in the deduction must be objective in the first place.
The most credible objective premises are those of scientific facts which is human-based thus ultimately subjectively.

Objectivity is independent of subject[s] but ultimately not independent of a collective-of-subjects, i.e. intersubjectivity.

Note Time and Space are never absolutely objective independent of human conditions.
Time Does Not Exist. Let me explain with a graph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpyXVkqkQgg&t=4s

There are a lot of articles and references on the above.

[promethean75]

Wizard if u have a working FSK now is the time to present it for examination.

[Wizard22]

Wizard if u have a working FSK now is the time to present it for examination.

I wish he'd give me a hint... so far my top guess is Fantastic Synochronic Kopfkino.

[Wizard22]

Are you insisting 'water is H20' and all scientific facts are not objective as qualified to a specific human-based FSK?

Of course.

Logical deduction is never idiot proof, note GIGO [Garbage in, Garbage Out] within deduction.

Logic is not determined by the lowest-end of IQ, but by the highest-end.

The highest ability to reason, leads the subject to an object.

As such what is critical is whatever goes in the deduction must be objective in the first place.
The most credible objective premises are those of scientific facts which is human-based thus ultimately subjectively.

Objectivity is independent of subject[s] but ultimately not independent of a collective-of-subjects, i.e. intersubjectivity.

Note Time and Space are never absolutely objective independent of human conditions.
Time Does Not Exist. Let me explain with a graph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpyXVkqkQgg&t=4s

There are a lot of articles and references on the above.

No, the logical deduction is the gateway to Objectivity, not the input-output vector.

Because the input-output vector is purely Subjective and relative to the mind: Perception, Cognition, Projection.

In other words, logical deduction, Pure Reason, represents the synthesis between a person and his environment, by which Pattern-recognition synthesizes and takes place, where the Subject and Object are "at one", merging, which allows for Consciousness to be possible in the first place. The problems arise when this pattern-recognition is corrupted by all of 'Life' happening to the Subject. Life is predisposed, to Survive. And because the biases are so strong, pattern-recognition is also tainted. The human mind, along with all other evolved neural systems, wants to see the Universe as skewed to its own favor. So humans must 'correct' for this. This means gaining self-consciousness, and learning of one's own physical-visual "blindspots", along with the countless mental-cognitive blindspots.

It means you must reduce and suppress the Subjective-urges, as much as possible, while attempting to 'See' existence Objectively.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you insisting 'water is H20' and all scientific facts are not objective as qualified to a specific human-based FSK?

Of course.

You did not justify your answer.

See: Scientific Facts are objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

But this 'objectivity' is conditioned upon the human-based scientific conditions.
Because it is human-based, it is ultimately subjective, albeit intersubjective.

You cannot deny this objectivity, i.e. scientific objectivity which is the most credible and reliable.

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your sense of objectivity is grounded on an illusion;
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Logical deduction is never idiot proof, note GIGO [Garbage in, Garbage Out] within deduction.

Logic is not determined by the lowest-end of IQ, but by the highest-end.

The highest ability to reason, leads the subject to an object.

There is various types classical logic, fuzzy logic, deduction, induction, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Systems_of_logic
These various types of logic are invented by humans [subjective] with its specific rules.
Being human-based, logic is fundamentally grounded in subjects, thus subjective.
Whatever objectivity is derived from logic, it is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

The various types of logic correspond to the IQ ratings of humans.
Primal, primitive and classical logic are dealt within the lower rating of IQ while the other of higher IQ.

Primal, primitive and classical logic can be traced to human biology via evolution.
see:
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology by William S. Cooper.
Therein, Cooper justified how the three laws of logic evolved with the evolution of humans.

So, logic of whatever type is fundamentally and grounded to subject[s] i.e. subjectivity.

As such what is critical is whatever goes in the deduction must be objective in the first place.
The most credible objective premises are those of scientific facts which is human-based thus ultimately subjectively.

Objectivity is independent of subject[s] but ultimately not independent of a collective-of-subjects, i.e. intersubjectivity.

Note Time and Space are never absolutely objective independent of human conditions.
Time Does Not Exist. Let me explain with a graph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpyXVkqkQgg&t=4s

There are a lot of articles and references on the above.

No, the logical deduction is the gateway to Objectivity, not the input-output vector.

Because the input-output vector is purely Subjective and relative to the mind: Perception, Cognition, Projection.

In other words, logical deduction, Pure Reason, represents the synthesis between a person and his environment, by which Pattern-recognition synthesizes and takes place, where the Subject and Object are "at one", merging, which allows for Consciousness to be possible in the first place. The problems arise when this pattern-recognition is corrupted by all of 'Life' happening to the Subject. Life is predisposed, to Survive. And because the biases are so strong, pattern-recognition is also tainted. The human mind, along with all other evolved neural systems, wants to see the Universe as skewed to its own favor. So humans must 'correct' for this. This means gaining self-consciousness, and learning of one's own physical-visual "blindspots", along with the countless mental-cognitive blindspots.

It means you must reduce and suppress the Subjective-urges, as much as possible, while attempting to 'See' existence Objectively.

As I had explained above, logical deduction is grounded on subjectivity, and thus logically its follows, whatever objectivity results from logic, it is fundamentally subjective.
E.g. scientific objectivity which eliminates 'corruption by humans' or subject[s]' biasness' is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Pure Reason is actually primal and primitive reasoning which can easily be tainted by subjective urges.
This is why Kant came up the Critique of Pure Reason.
In order to facilitate survival, pure reason trigger humans to jump to quick conclusions from logic such is 'if X, then Y' instinctively without serious consideration of the evidences.

Kant critiqued this on Pure Reason [in { } = mine] in jumping to what is 'Objective Reality' which is in this case is actually an illusion;

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude {via Pure Reason} from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions {transcendental Ideas, God, Soul & The World, } are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

As Kant proposed, to avoid the deception of Pure Reason, humans must rely on critical thinking and rationality which of higher levels of reasonings. . This is why Kant labelled his philosophy 'Critical Philosophy' based on critical thinking and rationality;

Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation.[1]
The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind,[2] thus a critical thinker is a person who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been trained and educated in its disciplines.[3]
Richard W. Paul said that the mind of a critical thinker engages the person's intellectual abilities and personality traits.[4]
Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use in effective communication and problem solving, and a commitment to overcome egocentrism and sociocentrism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

The various types of logic are merely tools of critical thinking and rationality.

It means you must reduce and suppress the Subjective-urges, as much as possible, while attempting to 'See' existence Objectively.

Existence is not predicate and thus cannot exist by itself.
Existence, exists is merely "is" and thus a copula that join the subject [object] to the predicate.
The most credible and objective mode to predicate the subject {object} is the scientific method which is human-based.
Thus, logically [deductively] it follows that whatever the objective that is predicated, it is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Point is, objectivity gets rid of crude subjectivity [individual(s) opinions, judgments], but what is ultimately objective is subject to refine subjectivity.
There is no pure objectivity reality by itself existing absolutely unconditional to human conditions.

What you supposed and postulate as an absolutely independent objective reality is driven by an inner psychology due to an existential crisis.

[Wizard22]

You didn't really respond to my points and arguments, Veritas, you're going to have to do better than that.

Logic is not 'invented' by humans, but discovered. Humans "inherit" integrated neurological circuitry.

You missed the point on IQ variation, and how that corresponds directly and appropriately to logic.

Furthermore, Existence is predicated, because Subjects and Objects must both Exist congruently.

[Trajk Logik]

You didn't really respond to my points and arguments, Veritas, you're going to have to do better than that.

Logic is not 'invented' by humans, but discovered. Humans "inherit" integrated neurological circuitry.

You missed the point on IQ variation, and how that corresponds directly and appropriately to logic.

Furthermore, Existence is predicated, because Subjects and Objects must both Exist congruently.

...and you didn't actually respond to many of the points I made in your prior thread.

You seem to be forgetting that humans, or observers are a part of this "objective" reality you speak of. Their subjectivity is objective in the fact they are part of reality, perform actions (based on their "subjective" perceptions that have a real effect on the objective world they occupy. When I am asleep and you are outside of my "subjective" awareness, you exist objectively, no? And your involuntary biological functions exist outside of both of our awareness in an "objective" way, no? And those involuntary functions are necessary for you to even have a "subjective" experience (to qualify as an observer), no?

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity becomes incoherent when you stop thinking that observers are somehow separate, or special in relation to the rest of the world and that the relations that exist between observers and their environment is different than the other relations that make up reality. They are only different in scope, not in that they are relations where everything else isn't. If not then you have the impossible problem of explaining how observers acquire knowledge of anything and how their subjective ideas can have an objective impact on the world.

[Wizard22]

...and you didn't actually respond to many of the points I made in your prior thread.

I did, you should go back to the Subject-Object thread and see I responded to you last:
viewtopic.php?p=665104

No, with respect to objects and objectivity, they don't need to be 'relational' at all, because they don't depend on our Subjective experience. Objects exist, without us, without our experience. The subject, our subjectivity, is what/whom requires 'relation'.

You seem to be forgetting that humans, or observers are a part of this "objective" reality you speak of. Their subjectivity is objective in the fact they are part of reality, perform actions (based on their "subjective" perceptions that have a real effect on the objective world they occupy.

Subjects are objects, but from which perspective? From the subjective point-of-view??

When I am asleep and you are outside of my "subjective" awareness, you exist objectively, no? And your involuntary biological functions exist outside of both of our awareness in an "objective" way, no? And those involuntary functions are necessary for you to even have a "subjective" experience (to qualify as an observer), no?

We've been over this already.

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity becomes incoherent when you stop thinking that observers are somehow separate, or special in relation to the rest of the world and that the relations that exist between observers and their environment is different than the other relations that make up reality.

They are separate though—what do you think Consciousness and Cognition are?

Consciousness is the body's attempt to separate from "itself".

They are only different in scope, not in that they are relations where everything else isn't. If not then you have the impossible problem of explaining how observers acquire knowledge of anything and how their subjective ideas can have an objective impact on the world.

If the subject-object division is false, and humans are objects, then so too must minds and ideas be objects.

According to your arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You didn't really respond to my points and arguments, Veritas, you're going to have to do better than that.

You did not include my quote, so I did not get notified of your response.
I had tried, what did I miss out? let me know.

You have also not addressed to my all my points which I think are critical.

Logic is not 'invented' by humans, but discovered. Humans "inherit" integrated neurological circuitry.

Basic Logic is "programmed" and adapted via evolution and the present humans 'inherited' it.
Note I referenced Cooper's book.
Subsequent logic is invented by human with its rules and agreed intersubjectively.
The invented rule 'law of the excluded middle' is not accepted by various groups who 'invented' other methods of logic.

I mentioned this;
There is various types classical logic, fuzzy logic, deduction, induction, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Systems_of_logic
Did you read the reference, and do you agree with this?

You missed the point on IQ variation, and how that corresponds directly and appropriately to logic.

I did not miss [omitted to response] the above.

I stated this;
The various types of logic correspond to the IQ ratings of humans.
Primal, primitive and classical logic are dealt within the lower rating of IQ while the other of higher IQ.

Maybe you disagree to the above, if so, why?

Here again;

Logical deduction is never idiot proof, note GIGO [Garbage in, Garbage Out] within deduction.

Logic is not determined by the lowest-end of IQ, but by the highest-end.

The highest ability to reason, leads the subject to an object.

There is various types classical logic, fuzzy logic, deduction, induction, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Systems_of_logic
These various types of logic are invented by humans [subjective] with its specific rules.
Being human-based, logic is fundamentally grounded in subjects, thus subjective.
Whatever objectivity is derived from logic, it is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

The various types of logic correspond to the IQ ratings of humans.
Primal, primitive and classical logic are dealt within the lower rating of IQ while the other of higher IQ.

Primal, primitive and classical logic can be traced to human biology via evolution.
see:
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology by William S. Cooper.
Therein, Cooper justified how the three laws of logic evolved with the evolution of humans.

So, logic of whatever type is fundamentally and grounded to subject[s] i.e. subjectivity.

Furthermore, Existence is predicated, because Subjects and Objects must both Exist congruently.

In grammar the subject that is predicated is also an object, but that is not subject is the sense of an individual person.

Subjects[humans] do exist in congruence with objects.
There is no objects without humans in the ultimate [not common] sense.

Existence [exist, is] is not a predicate.
"Is" is merely a copula to join a subject/object to the predicate.
When we say "an apple is" it is implied,
an apple [subject/object] is [exists as] a fruit [predicate].

There is no thing-in-itself which exists without a predicate [explicit or implied].
You understand [not necessary agree with] this point?
This is argued by Kant in the whole of his Critique of Pure* Reason.
* pure = primal, primitive, evolutionary default, crude reasoning.

Btw, include my quote of this post so that I am notified.
If you are new, Click the " at the top right hand corner.

[Age]

Objectivity is outside all human or animal conscious awareness.
When you go to sleep at night, the sun, the moon, the earth all still exist.
Objective existence does not require Subjective experience, to exist.
You, your body, your life, your physical identity, still exists while you are in a coma.

So if objectivity is 'outside' consciousness, then how do we (humanity) know about it?

But 'objectivity', which fits in with the GUTOE, is not outside of consciousness.

Unless, of course, you could present a sound and valid argument showing that 'objectivity' is outside of consciousness.

That's the kicker...technically, we don't. Instead we use our higher & highest mental faculties to "get at" it, to access it, to enter it. We use "Science", Rationality, Reason, Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics, and the like—to try (and fail) to gain access.

But what is 'it' first?

However, the immediate problem of Objectivity, is that it enters into Mysticism, Fantasy, Childhood Imagination, very quickly.

'Objectivity' only enters into these things if you put 'objectivity' there.

Because all humans begin life from the stage of childhood, before adulthood, therein our first impressions of Objectivity are...undisciplined, unrestrained, unkempt.

But all human beings begin life before childhood.

Also, one's first impression of 'objectivity' is vast and varied. For example your first impression of 'objectivity' is most likely very vast and different from mine, which would be very vastly different from "others".

Was your first impression of 'objectivity' really undisciplined, unrestrained, and unkempt?

The important 'Fact' to realize about our attempts to "step into" Objectivity, is that they are all failures and doomed to failure.

But this conclusion and belief of yours is very False and Wrong, to me.

Because the Objective Realm can never match the Subjective Realm.

Why?

What is the 'objective realm' to you, and what is the 'subjective realm', to you?

To do so, would require Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence.

Each of which is happening and occurring right NOW.

You would need to be—literally God.

Very True, and which is very attainable, and very reachable. In fact this is what is happening RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

Thus the Objective realm is used...by Religion, by Faith, by Charlatans, by Liars, by the Unskilled, by the Uncreative, by all types, good and bad.

So, are you now saying and claiming that the 'objective realm' can actually be attained, and reached?

In these, the lesser examples, the worst of humanity, poses itself as "equal to" the highest and best of humanity.

And what is the 'highest and best' of humanity, exactly?

The presumption is, to analogize, that all Architects are equally valid and good. But that is not true, in form or practice. A failed Architect, has his buildings crumble to the ground, or bridges collapse, costing lives.

Could it never be the "builders" of buildings that have caused buildings to crumble, nor the materials themselves? Is it always the "architects" who cause buildings to crumble, or bridges to collapse?

Yet the religious interpretations of Objectivity are most commonly understood throughout Humanity. Most people don't seem to connect the two, Science and Religion, as both trying to gain access to the same 'realm'. They are perceived as different types of truth. But really, their Object is the same...Objectivity itself.

Okay, but so what?

What is your so-called 'object' here?

viewtopic.php?t=40638

Subject:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective inside a human life, within "the mind" or consciousness.

The Subject is what 'you' are, your self-identity.

Subjectivity requires a (your own) "living perspective".



Object:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective outside a human life, without "the mind" or consciousness.

The Object is what 'you' are not, otherness.

Objectivity does not require a (your own) "living perspective".

So, what does 'objectivity' require, exactly?

[Trajk Logik]

...and you didn't actually respond to many of the points I made in your prior thread.

I did, you should go back to the Subject-Object thread and see I responded to you last:
viewtopic.php?p=665104

So, I'll re-phrase: You may have responded but what you responded with didn't actually address the points I made, hence my warnings that we end up talking past each other.

No, with respect to objects and objectivity, they don't need to be 'relational' at all, because they don't depend on our Subjective experience. Objects exist, without us, without our experience. The subject, our subjectivity, is what/whom requires 'relation'.

This is just wrong. Objects exist in relation to each other. Objects are themselves relations of smaller objects, ie molecules and atoms. So where exactly are the "objects" if every "object" is really just a relation of smaller "objects", all the way down? There aren't any objects at all. It's relations all the way down.

You seem to be forgetting that humans, or observers are a part of this "objective" reality you speak of. Their subjectivity is objective in the fact they are part of reality, perform actions (based on their "subjective" perceptions that have a real effect on the objective world they occupy.

Subjects are objects, but from which perspective? From the subjective point-of-view??

You tell me. It's what I've been asking you several times now: How do you get to the claim that there is an objective aspect to the world if all you have to go by is your subjective point of view?

I would say that relations are objects from some point of view. Our minds compartmentalize the relations around us creating objects of thought, kind of like digitizing an analog signal into discreet 1s and 0s.

What is a "subjective" point-of-view? Are there any points-of-view that are not subjective?

When I am asleep and you are outside of my "subjective" awareness, you exist objectively, no? And your involuntary biological functions exist outside of both of our awareness in an "objective" way, no? And those involuntary functions are necessary for you to even have a "subjective" experience (to qualify as an observer), no?

We've been over this already.

Your response was insufficient or did not adequately address my point. Try again.

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity becomes incoherent when you stop thinking that observers are somehow separate, or special in relation to the rest of the world and that the relations that exist between observers and their environment is different than the other relations that make up reality.

They are separate though—what do you think Consciousness and Cognition are?

Consciousness is the body's attempt to separate from "itself".

...only if you believe in a "soul". I do not. I view consciousness/cognition as just another process. Consciousness is a type of cognition. It is basically a type of working memory. In this sense, ChatGPT would be conscious. It processes input in memory to produce some output. The difference between us and ChatGPT is that we can turn this processing back on itself to think about thinking and to be aware of awareness, essentially turning thinking and awareness into objects that are thought about.

They are only different in scope, not in that they are relations where everything else isn't. If not then you have the impossible problem of explaining how observers acquire knowledge of anything and how their subjective ideas can have an objective impact on the world.

If the subject-object division is false, and humans are objects, then so too must minds and ideas be objects.

According to your arguments.

Using my arguments but your words. Instead of "objects" I prefer to use terms like "processes", "relationships" and "information". It's not objects all the way down. It's relationships/processes/information all the way down.

[Wizard22]

Basic Logic is "programmed" and adapted via evolution and the present humans 'inherited' it.
Note I referenced Cooper's book.
Subsequent logic is invented by human with its rules and agreed intersubjectively.
The invented rule 'law of the excluded middle' is not accepted by various groups who 'invented' other methods of logic.

How is "subsequent logic invented"? That makes no sense. Logic refers to neurological hardware, not software. If you mean there are very complex logical sequences, which are "invented", yes that's somewhat true. But I don't think that's your actual claim here.

I mentioned this;
There is various types classical logic, fuzzy logic, deduction, induction, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Systems_of_logic
Did you read the reference, and do you agree with this?

I know what logic is, because I've practiced it and argued against just about every logical fallacy through my philosophical experience.

I stated this;
The various types of logic correspond to the IQ ratings of humans.
Primal, primitive and classical logic are dealt within the lower rating of IQ while the other of higher IQ.

Maybe you disagree to the above, if so, why?

I don't disagree... lower IQ ratings tend to lack complex logical abilities.

This is reflected in human distribution of Mathematical ability, or Literacy.

Here again;

Logic is not determined by the lowest-end of IQ, but by the highest-end.

The highest ability to reason, leads the subject to an object.

There is various types classical logic, fuzzy logic, deduction, induction, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Systems_of_logic
These various types of logic are invented by humans [subjective] with its specific rules.
Being human-based, logic is fundamentally grounded in subjects, thus subjective.

Again, I don't know of any Logic "invented" by humans. You need to justify that case.

Whatever objectivity is derived from logic, it is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

You reached that conclusion from a flawed premise, that logic is "subjectively invented". I disagree.

The reason why Logic must be 'objective' is because logic must match subjective data to objective phenomena.

There must be a 1:1 correlation at some point, otherwise Sensual experience, Consciousness, Perception, none of it would be possible.

None of it would correspond, even partially or indirectly, with Existence.

The various types of logic correspond to the IQ ratings of humans.
Primal, primitive and classical logic are dealt within the lower rating of IQ while the other of higher IQ.

Primal, primitive and classical logic can be traced to human biology via evolution.
see:
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology by William S. Cooper.
Therein, Cooper justified how the three laws of logic evolved with the evolution of humans.

So, logic of whatever type is fundamentally and grounded to subject[s] i.e. subjectivity.

Furthermore, Existence is predicated, because Subjects and Objects must both Exist congruently.

In grammar the subject that is predicated is also an object, but that is not subject is the sense of an individual person.

Subjects[humans] do exist in congruence with objects.
There is no objects without humans in the ultimate [not common] sense.

Existence [exist, is] is not a predicate.
"Is" is merely a copula to join a subject/object to the predicate.
When we say "an apple is" it is implied,
an apple [subject/object] is [exists as] a fruit [predicate].

There is no thing-in-itself which exists without a predicate [explicit or implied].
You understand [not necessary agree with] this point?
This is argued by Kant in the whole of his Critique of Pure* Reason.
* pure = primal, primitive, evolutionary default, crude reasoning.

Btw, include my quote of this post so that I am notified.
If you are new, Click the " at the top right hand corner.

I still think the predicate is "Existence-Itself", or simply, Existence.

[Wizard22]

But 'objectivity', which fits in with the GUTOE, is not outside of consciousness.

Unless, of course, you could present a sound and valid argument showing that 'objectivity' is outside of consciousness.

That's the kicker...technically, we don't. Instead we use our higher & highest mental faculties to "get at" it, to access it, to enter it. We use "Science", Rationality, Reason, Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics, and the like—to try (and fail) to gain access.

But what is 'it' first?

However, the immediate problem of Objectivity, is that it enters into Mysticism, Fantasy, Childhood Imagination, very quickly.

'Objectivity' only enters into these things if you put 'objectivity' there.

No, because Objectivity is not dependent upon/relative to Subjects.

It's the other way around. Subjects are dependent upon/relative to Objectivity as a whole.

But all human beings begin life before childhood.

Where? When?

Also, one's first impression of 'objectivity' is vast and varied. For example your first impression of 'objectivity' is most likely very vast and different from mine, which would be very vastly different from "others".

Was your first impression of 'objectivity' really undisciplined, unrestrained, and unkempt?

My first impressions of objectivity were when I tried to imagine Existence, without my Consciousness/Awareness/Experience/Life.

And you?

But this conclusion and belief of yours is very False and Wrong, to me.

Because the Objective Realm can never match the Subjective Realm.

Why?

What is the 'objective realm' to you, and what is the 'subjective realm', to you?

Did I not already cover this?

To do so, would require Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence.

Each of which is happening and occurring right NOW.

You would need to be—literally God.

Very True, and which is very attainable, and very reachable. In fact this is what is happening RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

Thus the Objective realm is used...by Religion, by Faith, by Charlatans, by Liars, by the Unskilled, by the Uncreative, by all types, good and bad.

So, are you now saying and claiming that the 'objective realm' can actually be attained, and reached?

At the very least, people begin to believe that "Objectivity" has been reached, at certain points. That's kind of the point I'm moving toward... how, why, when, exactly, people believe they've moved from Subject to Object, or as-if entering from a state of lower Belief to scientific Fact, or philosophical Untruth, to Truth. That people use these analogies interchangeably, means to me, people have natural intuitions of Objectivity, 'beyond' what one can possibly know. And certainly beyond anyone's Capabilities to know. There are Epistemological limits at play, limits to a human's knowledge, intelligence/IQ, logical analysis and deductions, or even, willingness to risk about what is True or False.

In these, the lesser examples, the worst of humanity, poses itself as "equal to" the highest and best of humanity.

And what is the 'highest and best' of humanity, exactly?

The presumption is, to analogize, that all Architects are equally valid and good. But that is not true, in form or practice. A failed Architect, has his buildings crumble to the ground, or bridges collapse, costing lives.

Could it never be the "builders" of buildings that have caused buildings to crumble, nor the materials themselves? Is it always the "architects" who cause buildings to crumble, or bridges to collapse?

Is Causality subjective or objective? Where is the Cause? Determining Causes and Causality, assigning blame, is a matter of Justice and Justification. Those who Judge Rightly, are claimed to have an objective sense of the universe, all the way up to how the Abrahamics envision their God (Absolutely Just and Righteous).

Okay, but so what?

What is your so-called 'object' here?

viewtopic.php?t=40638

Subject:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective inside a human life, within "the mind" or consciousness.

The Subject is what 'you' are, your self-identity.

Subjectivity requires a (your own) "living perspective".



Object:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective outside a human life, without "the mind" or consciousness.

The Object is what 'you' are not, otherness.

Objectivity does not require a (your own) "living perspective".

So, what does 'objectivity' require, exactly?

I think that it is Subjectivity that has all the "requirements", not Objectivity.

Objects require no energy to Exist. Meanwhile, Subjects, you, me, anybody else, require immense energy to exist, and to form and have Consciousness.

[Wizard22]

...and you didn't actually respond to many of the points I made in your prior thread.

I did, you should go back to the Subject-Object thread and see I responded to you last:
viewtopic.php?p=665104

So, I'll re-phrase: You may have responded but what you responded with didn't actually address the points I made, hence my warnings that we end up talking past each other.

No, with respect to objects and objectivity, they don't need to be 'relational' at all, because they don't depend on our Subjective experience. Objects exist, without us, without our experience. The subject, our subjectivity, is what/whom requires 'relation'.

This is just wrong. Objects exist in relation to each other. Objects are themselves relations of smaller objects, ie molecules and atoms. So where exactly are the "objects" if every "object" is really just a relation of smaller "objects", all the way down? There aren't any objects at all. It's relations all the way down.

No, it is our Subjectivity that 'requires' those "relationships all the way down".

That is your brain, trying to make sense of Objectivity.

You tell me. It's what I've been asking you several times now: How do you get to the claim that there is an objective aspect to the world if all you have to go by is your subjective point of view?

I would say that relations are objects from some point of view. Our minds compartmentalize the relations around us creating objects of thought, kind of like digitizing an analog signal into discreet 1s and 0s.

What is a "subjective" point-of-view? Are there any points-of-view that are not subjective?

I think the primary means to "get at" Objectivity is through logic, and most specifically, the logical deduction and premise, that all humans or any other living subject, is also an Object. Was it you, or another, that remarked on how a comatose person, or a lifeless corpse, is very much "the same as" an object? And why not? Is life all that differs? Is it consciousness?

If Subjectivity is entirely premised upon Consciousness, Cognition in general, then the division between Subject/Object is as simple as having Cognition (or, Life).

Therein, Subjectivity maybe a type of "forgetting one's own Objectivity", pretending as though Life is not Lifeless. This is just a possibility.

Your response was insufficient or did not adequately address my point. Try again.

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity becomes incoherent when you stop thinking that observers are somehow separate, or special in relation to the rest of the world and that the relations that exist between observers and their environment is different than the other relations that make up reality.

They are separate though—what do you think Consciousness and Cognition are?

Consciousness is the body's attempt to separate from "itself".

...only if you believe in a "soul". I do not. I view consciousness/cognition as just another process. Consciousness is a type of cognition. It is basically a type of working memory. In this sense, ChatGPT would be conscious. It processes input in memory to produce some output. The difference between us and ChatGPT is that we can turn this processing back on itself to think about thinking and to be aware of awareness, essentially turning thinking and awareness into objects that are thought about.

I don't believe that ChatGPT or any AI, currently, can be "Conscious" of the difference between Subject/Object...when most humans certainly cannot. Your argument requires a lot more justification, to me.

If consciousness is "working memory", then what are memories? And are memories the only thing that separates life from "Un-life"? Is memory then, the separation between Subject and Object? By your rationalization, it seems so.

Using my arguments but your words. Instead of "objects" I prefer to use terms like "processes", "relationships" and "information". It's not objects all the way down. It's relationships/processes/information all the way down.

I think 'Objective' is still the better reference, even if it includes processes, relationships, and information "all the way down".

And I don't think it's Down. I think it's Out.

[Age]

But 'objectivity', which fits in with the GUTOE, is not outside of consciousness.

Unless, of course, you could present a sound and valid argument showing that 'objectivity' is outside of consciousness.

That's the kicker...technically, we don't. Instead we use our higher & highest mental faculties to "get at" it, to access it, to enter it. We use "Science", Rationality, Reason, Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics, and the like—to try (and fail) to gain access.

But what is 'it' first?

However, the immediate problem of Objectivity, is that it enters into Mysticism, Fantasy, Childhood Imagination, very quickly.

'Objectivity' only enters into these things if you put 'objectivity' there.

No, because Objectivity is not dependent upon/relative to Subjects.

you are missing the point.

It's the other way around. Subjects are dependent upon/relative to Objectivity as a whole.

If 'you', 'the subject', BELIEVE and SAY so.

But all human beings begin life before childhood.

Where?

Depending on 'one's' own subjective point of view and definition of and for the phrase and term 'human being', it could be said, usually in the fallopian tube, in the uterus, or in the womb.

When?

At any stage from conception, or fertilization, or during the always evolving embryo or fetus.

Also, one's first impression of 'objectivity' is vast and varied. For example your first impression of 'objectivity' is most likely very vast and different from mine, which would be very vastly different from "others".

Was your first impression of 'objectivity' really undisciplined, unrestrained, and unkempt?

My first impressions of objectivity were when I tried to imagine Existence, without my Consciousness/Awareness/Experience/Life.

And you?

I do NOT recall.

But, let us NOT forget, I NEVER asked you WHEN 'your' first impression of 'objectivity' was. I ASKED 'you', 'Was your first impression of 'objectivity' really undisciplined, unrestrained, and unkempt?'

Which a 'Yes', 'No', or 'I do not remember', response and answer would have sufficed.

But this conclusion and belief of yours is very False and Wrong, to me.

Because the Objective Realm can never match the Subjective Realm.

Why?

What is the 'objective realm' to you, and what is the 'subjective realm', to you?

Did I not already cover this?

But 'your' OWN, very specific, 'subjective' view and perspective of the 'objective realm' is NOT the SAME, to me,

So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that, supposedly and allegedly by 'you', makes 'your' OWN subjective definition and version the, proposed, true, right, and correct one?

Are 'you' STILL NOT YET RECOGNIZING, SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING that what 'you' call the 'objective realm' is 'your' VERY OWN subjective VIEW of 'things' here?

To do so, would require Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence.

Each of which is happening and occurring right NOW.

You would need to be—literally God.

Very True, and which is very attainable, and very reachable. In fact this is what is happening RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.

Thus the Objective realm is used...by Religion, by Faith, by Charlatans, by Liars, by the Unskilled, by the Uncreative, by all types, good and bad.

So, are you now saying and claiming that the 'objective realm' can actually be attained, and reached?

At the very least, people begin to believe that "Objectivity" has been reached, at certain points. That's kind of the point I'm moving toward... how, why, when, exactly, people believe they've moved from Subject to Object, or as-if entering from a state of lower Belief to scientific Fact, or philosophical Untruth, to Truth.

HOW? By the means necessary to reach the 'evolutionary stage' of 'Objectivity', Itself.

WHY? Because the very purpose of evolution is so that Life, Itself, 'evolves' to COME-TO-KNOW Its(OWN)Self, and the Fact that because of 'evolution', itself, Life, Itself, is continually LEARNING, and BE-COMING WISER.

WHEN? Continually for ALL, collectively. But, WHEN one has reached a position/view that IS IRREFUTABLE, then that is WHEN one has ARRIVED AT and UNCOVERED the Truth, which is, after all, just a Fact that can NOT be REFUTED by ANY one, anyway.

That people use these analogies interchangeably, means to me, people have natural intuitions of Objectivity, 'beyond' what one can possibly know.

WHY do 'you' ASSUME, PRESUME, or BELIEVE that there are 'things' that are 'beyond' what one can possibly know?

Would you be willing to provide ANY examples so that we have some 'thing' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS?

And certainly beyond anyone's Capabilities to know.

Like 'what', for example?

There are Epistemological limits at play, limits to a human's knowledge, intelligence/IQ, logical analysis and deductions, or even, willingness to risk about what is True or False.

Oh, are 'you' under some sort of illusion that FOREVER MORE 'you', human beings, exist IN the 'human being' stage?

Are 'you' NOT YET AWARE that 'you', human beings, are ONLY A PART, and/or A STAGE, IN the 'continual evolution' of 'Life', Itself?

In these, the lesser examples, the worst of humanity, poses itself as "equal to" the highest and best of humanity.

And what is the 'highest and best' of humanity, exactly?

The presumption is, to analogize, that all Architects are equally valid and good. But that is not true, in form or practice. A failed Architect, has his buildings crumble to the ground, or bridges collapse, costing lives.

Could it never be the "builders" of buildings that have caused buildings to crumble, nor the materials themselves? Is it always the "architects" who cause buildings to crumble, or bridges to collapse?

Is Causality subjective or objective?

The word 'causality', to me, is just a word that denotes, means, or refers to that ALL 'things' were 'caused', and as well as have an 'effect' ON "other things'.

'Causality', itself, to me, is neither 'subjective' nor 'objective', as the words 'subjective' and 'objective' mean or refer to some 'thing' else.

Where is the Cause?

Where is the 'Cause' of 'what', EXACTLY?

Or, WHERE 'Cause', Itself, IS, EXACTLY, is just IN 'thought' and 'thinking', and/or IN the very 'thing', which IS Creating EVERY 'thing'. And 'that' is JUST IN the ABILITY of matter to move about FREELY. 'This ABILITY' is what HAS, IS, and WILL Cause AND Create EVERY 'thing'. Which, by the way, are just 'subjective' or 'relative' views of the One and ONLY Truly Objective Thing, which REALLY ONLY EXISTS. BUT, 'I' think 'you', "wizard 22", will find most of 'you', human beings, are quite some way off from Truly comprehending, understanding, and thus learning, in the days when this is being written.

But do NOT worry, BECAUSE of 'evolution', itself, learning, comprehending, and understanding the above COMES SOON ENOUGH, for 'the rest' of 'you'.

Determining Causes and Causality, assigning blame, is a matter of Justice and Justification. Those who Judge Rightly, are claimed to have an objective sense of the universe, all the way up to how the Abrahamics envision their God (Absolutely Just and Righteous).

But WHO are 'those', supposedly, 'Judges Rightly'?

Okay, but so what?

What is your so-called 'object' here?

viewtopic.php?t=40638

So, what does 'objectivity' require, exactly?

I think that it is Subjectivity that has all the "requirements", not Objectivity.

Objects require no energy to Exist.

So, the object known as 'the sun', for example, to you, does NOT require ANY energy, right?

Meanwhile, Subjects, you, me, anybody else, require immense energy to exist, and to form and have Consciousness.

So, what is 'the subject', which 'you' call 'you', 'me', or 'anybody else', made up OF, EXACTLY, which 'you' also CLAIM requires IMMENSE ENERGY to exist, to form, and TO HAVE 'Consciousness'?

And, are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE that it is 'you', or 'me' who HAS 'Consciousness'?