Circularity of 'Objectivity' in Dictionary

[Veritas Aequitas]

Take the stars you see in the night sky.
Yes, they are from electrical signals that are delivered to us by our sense organs from billion of light years ago.
But in real time, at present 2023, that star [electronic waves triggered in your mind] could not existed at all at present, i.e. already have exploded or collapse into nothing.

Besides, what is triggered in your mind could be an illusion and do not represent anything 'real'.

Which is the same regarding other people for you. They might be an illusion. And yet you act as if other minds and other people exist and that they are external to you. You cannot experience their experience, yet you assume, over and over, with never a doubt, that their experiencing is real. Here above you chastise and condescend to another mind while telling it, without realizing you are doing this, that for all you know it doesn't exist. As such, you need to expand your thinking for your own sake in doing philosophy. You think the illusion issue goes away at smaller distances? And what is distance to a radical anti-realist? There's only experiencing. There is no distance from experiencing.

You are speaking for yourself from an ignorant philosophical realist stance.
I have never claimed other people and their minds are real in the absolutely mind-independent within the philosophical realist sense.
I already stated this a "1000" times.

My position is other people and their minds are "real" enough for optimal living but not absolutely mind-independent in the philosophical realist sense.

[nemos]

The issue here is whether your claim, there is a real and objective [given through the sense] is absolutely mind-independent real discretely regardless of whether there are humans to perceive or not.

I really can't get your point yet, so I won't comment.

The only thing that seems to me is that it is not so important how limited our subjectivity corresponds to real objectivity. The important thing is that we don't have anything else, and that means we will have to figure out ways to make do with what we have. For example, to create science as a tool and cultivate critical thinking, to exchange opinions in order to understand what is common and what is different in them.

[Age]

Who and/or what is the 'we', exactly, which you refer to and speak of here?

We are the subjects, it seems to me.

But who and/or what are 'we', the 'subjects', exactly?

Is it, for example, and to be more specific, just you human beings alone, and/or something else?

I might be wrong about you in particular, so I apologize in any case.

Oh, there is absolutely nothing at all to apologize about here.

But, what is the word 'objectivity' referring to, to you, exactly?

Objectivity is composed of electrical signals delivered to us by our sense organs.

So, whatever the actual 'thing' is, exactly, which is composed of electrical signals delivered to 'us', (whoever or whatever the 'us' word refers to exactly), by 'your' sense organs is 'objectivity' to you, right?

If you have another way to receive information from the "outside", then I can only be happy for you.

I am not sure how this fits in with absolutely anything here, but so be it.

What is the 'matrix story'?

Follow the sign -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix

But why are you trying to do this?

Maybe because I'm addicted to social interaction.

you may well be. But, obviously, you do not have to do what you say and claim you do here.

Or possible, interaction at all, because the brain requires information.

Again, this still does not mean that you have to do what you say and claim that you do here.

It would be absolutely disgusting to live in a world, albeit a virtual one, where there is nothing, not a single bit of information.

Okay, but this, again, has absolutely nothing to do with the actual clarifying question that I posed, and asked you here.

Okay, but why 'sigh of relief' now, were you doing something hard or strenuousness here?

Yes, organizing so many characters makes me tired not only when writing, but also when reading. I like short and concise wording.

So, why do you not write, short and concise?

Also, if you just only answered the actual question I pose, and ask you here, only, then you would only need to write, and say, far less than you have been doing.

[Age]

Objectivity is composed of electrical signals delivered to us by our sense organs. If you have another way to receive information from the "outside", then I can only be happy for you.

If your above is qualified only to common sense, then I can agree with you.

But from a philosophical perspective, common sense or even conventional sense are insufficient to represent what is efficiently real.
Within common sense, there are mind-independent external independent objects out there but to insist upon such a claim as absolutely-real cannot be realistic.

To insist external objects are absolutely objective and real is delusional because external objects are tentative, transitional, impermanent and illusory.

As Russell had asserted "even when one is looking at a table, perhaps there is no Table at ALL?"

Well if one wants to 'doubt' whether the 'thing', which one is actually 'looking at' is even 'there', or not, 'in sight', then that one would be better off getting there 'eyes checked' I would recommend.

Now, of course, if the 'thing' one is 'looking at' is still in the exact same form, shape, and way, then obviously not. And, this irrefutable Fact applies to absolutely every thing that is being 'looked at', and 'seen'. But, this is just because of the duration between what is 'seen' or 'recognized' and what was being 'looked at'.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
Problems of Philosophy

1. If one 'doubts' too much, then 'doubt' itself can also lead one astray.

2. No actual question was posed, nor even asked, here. So, what is the 'such questions', which this one is referring to, exactly?

3. But it is very simple and very easy to know if the strangest hypotheses are true or not. In Fact when one is just 'looking at', and 'seeing' things for what they really are, then knowing what the actual Truth is, exactly, is a very simple and very easy thing to do, and which happens almost instantaneously as well. As I keep saying and claiming, and which I am still waiting for absolutely anyone to question and/or challenge me on.

4. What is this alleged 'problem full of surprising possibilities', exactly? Obviously, we can only solve and/or answer 'them' if and when 'they' are presented.

5. Why, what does 'it/the table' 'seem' like?

6. As for the rest here what is the 'it' word referring to, exactly?

7. There are no actual 'problems' of 'philosophy'. But, then again, I use those two words in a way that fits in, perfectly, with all other words.

Take the stars you see in the night sky.

Okay.

Yes, they are from electrical signals that are delivered to us by our sense organs from billion of light years ago.

What is the 'they' word here referring to, exactly?

But in real time, at present 2023,

Did you purposely write the numbers '2023' here?

that star [electronic waves triggered in your mind]

1. you do not have a mind.

2. There is no such thing as 'your mind'.

3. Therefore, what you say and claim here is just plain old False and Wrong.

could not existed at all at present, i.e. already have exploded or collapse into nothing.

How do you know this?

Some stars are only a few light years away, from 'you', at any given moment, so why would they have already exploded, or collapsed, before their light reaches 'you'?

Also, how do you know what happens 'in the future' to the things that you are 'looking at' and 'seeing'?

Furthermore, what has led you to think or believe and claim that all the 'seen' stars, in the night sky, do not exist in what 'you' call 'at present'?

Besides, what is triggered in your mind could be an illusion and do not represent anything 'real'.

For example, exactly like a fair amount of what you say and claim here "veritas aequitas", right?

Or, does this what is 'triggered' in that 'thinking' in 'that body' could be an illusion does not apply to 'you' nor to 'your claims and writings' here?

At such, you need to expand your thinking for your own sake in doing philosophy.

Okay. Like what 'you' have "veritas aequitas"?

Or, can no one reach and achieve what you are showing and revealing to 'us' here?

[Age]

As Russell had asserted "even when one is looking at a table, perhaps there is no Table at ALL?"

THE MATRIX: THERE IS NO SPOON

In reality, it is not so important what exactly the table is, but you can always count on the fact that the table is related to something real and objective (given through the senses)(even if it's just binary code, in any case, your consciousness receives it directly as a code (binary, ternary or whatever, it doesn't really matter)) as this real projection in your consciousness.

Who and/or what is the 'you', exactly, which, supposedly has 'its' consciousness?

And, there is absolutely no way to find out and know, for sure, that what is coming through 'the senses' of 'the body' is even really actually True, because they all could just be a 'figment of imagination', itself, obviously.

And the reason for this is the fact that you can put a spoon on it, possibly "non-existent", but quite useful.

Have you not considered that if 'the table' is non-existent, then so to could 'the spoon' be, which is being imagined that there is a 'you' putting 'a spoon' on 'the table'.

Of course, the situation is complicated by various psychic side effects, such as schizophrenia, with optical and acoustic visions that are born directly in your mind,

Here is another who thinks or believes and claims that there is a 'your mind'.

Talk about imagining 'things', which really are not 'there'.

without projecting anything from the outside, and therefore are not available to anyone else except you. However, as the story of John Nash shows, it is also possible to deal with this problem now and then.

After all, the ultimate test of our subjective perception's connection and correspondence with "objective reality" is survival.

This could become very interesting, and enlightening, when considered and 'looked into', fully.

The one for whom this conformity will not be sufficient will most likely not survive, at least not on his own, without the care of others.

[nemos]

Who and/or what is the 'you', exactly, which, supposedly has 'its' consciousness?

Good question, if you ever find out the answer, share it with the world. But I just have to live with this curse and the existential questions that come with it, for which I have no answers.
The question tickles the tip of my tongue all the time:
Do you consider yourself a person or an AI? If I had to bet I wouldn't be sure what to bet on.

Also, if you just only answered the actual question I pose, and ask you here, only, then you would only need to write, and say, far less than you have been doing.

You may think that I am here specifically to entertain you, but I will have to disappoint you, I am only here for my entertainment.

[Atla]

Take the stars you see in the night sky.
Yes, they are from electrical signals that are delivered to us by our sense organs from billion of light years ago.
But in real time, at present 2023, that star [electronic waves triggered in your mind] could not existed at all at present, i.e. already have exploded or collapse into nothing.

Besides, what is triggered in your mind could be an illusion and do not represent anything 'real'.

Which is the same regarding other people for you. They might be an illusion. And yet you act as if other minds and other people exist and that they are external to you. You cannot experience their experience, yet you assume, over and over, with never a doubt, that their experiencing is real. Here above you chastise and condescend to another mind while telling it, without realizing you are doing this, that for all you know it doesn't exist. As such, you need to expand your thinking for your own sake in doing philosophy. You think the illusion issue goes away at smaller distances? And what is distance to a radical anti-realist? There's only experiencing. There is no distance from experiencing.

You are speaking for yourself from an ignorant philosophical realist stance.
I have never claimed other people and their minds are real in the absolutely mind-independent within the philosophical realist sense.
I already stated this a "1000" times.

My position is other people and their minds are "real" enough for optimal living but not absolutely mind-independent in the philosophical realist sense.

You know what's more optimal for living than being a solipsist who denies being a solipsist? Treating other people as actually real.

[Iwannaplato]

You are speaking for yourself from an ignorant philosophical realist stance.

I am not a realist silly.
You can't even see the consequences of your own philosophy.

I have never claimed other people and their minds are real in the absolutely mind-independent within the philosophical realist sense.

Exactly. Which supports what I said. Thank you. You did not understand what I meant and think that saying this is relevant.

My position is other people and their minds are "real" enough for optimal living but not absolutely mind-independent in the philosophical realist sense.

You utterly missed the point of my post. Which is fine. I spent a long time trying to explain things to you in a variety of ways, but I no longer consider it my responsibility to help.

And I notice you said nothing about distance.

You just avoid or 'misunderstand' things that are problematic.

Notwithstanding you're inability to see anything ever that might be a problem with what you write, I will on occasion point such things out.

[Atla]

You are speaking for yourself from an ignorant philosophical realist stance.

I am not a realist silly.
You can't even see the consequences of your own philosophy.

I have never claimed other people and their minds are real in the absolutely mind-independent within the philosophical realist sense.

Exactly. Which supports what I said. Thank you. You did not understand what I meant and think that saying this is relevant.

My position is other people and their minds are "real" enough for optimal living but not absolutely mind-independent in the philosophical realist sense.

You utterly missed the point of my post. Which is fine. I spent a long time trying to explain things to you in a variety of ways, but I no longer consider it my responsibility to help.

And I notice you said nothing about distance.

You just avoid or 'misunderstand' things that are problematic.

Notwithstanding you're inability to see anything ever that might be a problem with what you write, I will on occasion point such things out.

But VA really doesn't think that you exist. You're just an empty appearance from his perspective, for a while he can tentatively treat you as if you actually existed, but in the end he knows that you don't really exist at all. This is the secret to "optimal living".

[Iwannaplato]

But VA really doesn't think that you exist. You're just an empty appearance from his perspective, for a while he can tentatively treat you as if you actually existed, but in the end he knows that you don't really exist at all. This is the secret to "optimal living".

Oh, I know. The funny thing was how easily you understood my post and he can't really.

He's never managed to admit that his antirealism denies the existence of anything that we do not experience directly. But we do not directly experience other minds. We infer them.

If you think some thing, a star, exists, even though you can't experience it directly, this is a delusion.
But he gets to believe in things that are inferred, BUT only when conditioned on FSKs.

He'll never go into what the exact boundaries are for 'experiencing directly'.

He will accept other minds that are utterly beyond his experiencing, but not allow conclusions about other things that exist beyond his experiencing.

He'll say he doesn't believe in those things as absolutely mind independently existing, souls and stars, but he won't notice that his star example is based on distance.

In the end he ought to be a solipsist, given his beliefs. But I think, differently from you, that actually he's not a solipsist. He just doesn't realize that he ought to be to be consistant.

We're looking at positions he's ended up taking to try to defeat Peter Holmes.

It's a bit like his still using objective when he has actually completely denied objectivity as a useful term. He's called it intersubjectivity. But he can't live with his facts and his positions and beliefs not being called objective.

[Atla]

But VA really doesn't think that you exist. You're just an empty appearance from his perspective, for a while he can tentatively treat you as if you actually existed, but in the end he knows that you don't really exist at all. This is the secret to "optimal living".

Oh, I know. The funny thing was how easily you understood my post and he can't really.

He's never managed to admit that his antirealism denies the existence of anything that we do not experience directly. But we do not directly experience other minds. We infer them.

If you think some thing, a star, exists, even though you can't experience it directly, this is a delusion.
But he gets to believe in things that are inferred, BUT only when conditioned on FSKs.

He'll never go into what the exact boundaries are for 'experiencing directly'.

He will accept other minds that are utterly beyond his experiencing, but not allow conclusions about other things that exist beyond his experiencing.

He'll say he doesn't believe in those things as absolutely mind independently existing, souls and stars, but he won't notice that his star example is based on distance.

In the end he ought to be a solipsist, given his beliefs. But I think, differently from you, that actually he's not a solipsist. He just doesn't realize that he ought to be to be consistant.

We're looking at positions he's ended up taking to try to defeat Peter Holmes.

It's a bit like his still using objective when he has actually completely denied objectivity as a useful term. He's called it intersubjectivity. But he can't live with his facts and his positions and beliefs not being called objective.

I believe you've been misunderstanding VA all along. He doesn't deny the existence of things we do not experience directly. His philosophy isn't related to such a take.

Instead he denies the actual existence of everything, probably even himself. He misunderstood the general Buddhist idea of emptiness, has taken it to a perverted extreme. And then he also tried to shove his misunderstanding of Kantian philosophy into it.

[Iwannaplato]

I believe you've been misunderstanding VA all along. He doesn't deny the existence of things we do not experience directly. His philosophy isn't related to such a take.

First off, he contradicts himself. He takes a position. Meets an objection. Takes on some kind of ontological or epistemological position to undermine is opposition or defend himself, without really seeing if the whole thing holds together. Given he can't admit to any serious mistakes, he ends up with a mishmash of beliefs, some of which don't fit together. I'll admit that deciding which position is just ad hoc handy and which is something he really believes is not easy to determine.

But he gets damn irritated at people and spends a lot of time insulting and trying to condescend to them. He believes we're out here - unless he's a bot.

Instead he denies the actual existence of everything, probably even himself. He misunderstood the general Buddhist idea of emptiness, has taken it to a perverted extreme. And then he also tried to shove his misunderstanding of Kantian philosophy into it.

I missed his essays on Buddhist emptiness. You may well be right about this.

[Iwannaplato]

You are speaking for yourself from an ignorant philosophical realist stance.
I have never claimed other people and their minds are real in the absolutely mind-independent within the philosophical realist sense.
I already stated this a "1000" times.

And still, as I have pointed out before, there is a difference between
attributing a philosophical position to you
and
pointing out what is entailed by your beliefs.

You simply cannot seem to conceive this difference.

Let me give an example.

A person could take a stand on racism. They could march in parades. They could even honestly say that they hate racism.
But someone, for example, could point out that they discriminate, perhaps unconsciously, against people of a certain race.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY TIMES they assert their anti-racism, they may be missing something about themselves or, in this case with you, the implications or what is entailed by their beliefs.

Every time you assert 'I have said X so many times' you fail to understand that people are often pointing out what is entailed by your positions, which by the way don't always fit together.

If you actually interacted with other people, you might notice the difference. What you tend to do is repeat your positions. That is NOT interacting.

[Atla]

I believe you've been misunderstanding VA all along. He doesn't deny the existence of things we do not experience directly. His philosophy isn't related to such a take.

First off, he contradicts himself. He takes a position. Meets an objection. Takes on some kind of ontological or epistemological position to undermine is opposition or defend himself, without really seeing if the whole thing holds together. Given he can't admit to any serious mistakes, he ends up with a mishmash of beliefs, some of which don't fit together. I'll admit that deciding which position is just ad hoc handy and which is something he really believes is not easy to determine.

But he gets damn irritated at people and spends a lot of time insulting and trying to condescend to them. He believes we're out here - unless he's a bot.

Instead he denies the actual existence of everything, probably even himself. He misunderstood the general Buddhist idea of emptiness, has taken it to a perverted extreme. And then he also tried to shove his misunderstanding of Kantian philosophy into it.

I missed his essays on Buddhist emptiness. You may well be right about this.

I always thought that VA's "philosophy" was a distorted philosophy of Buddhist emptiness first and foremost, and he tried to fit everything into that framework. For example his entire take on Kant is a misunderstanding from this distorted Buddhist emptiness perspective. But Kant was never talking about emptiness, only VA believes that. Kant was only talking about epistemology, about limits of knowledge. Emptiness is an ontological take.

I've been patiently waiting for VA to finally resign himself to talking about emptiness (after all his Western philosophy arguments got demolished), believing emptiness to be his ultimate trump card. It's what gives him all the confidence.

But somehow we never got to that. Too bad, it would have been funny. Because he doesn't even understand emptiness properly. All these grand insights are above his head, be they from Eastern or Western philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let me give an example.

A person could take a stand on racism. They could march in parades. They could even honestly say that they hate racism.
But someone, for example, could point out that they discriminate, perhaps unconsciously, against people of a certain race.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY TIMES they assert their anti-racism, they may be missing something about themselves or, in this case with you, the implications or what is entailed by their beliefs.

If I believe in some thing [no racism] and do otherwise [acted out racist behavior], then that is wrong and need correction.
In all the views I have expressed here I have not acted otherwise.
If you think so, that is based on your ignorance.
Also it is because I am resisting to trash out [discuss & explain in detail] the issue all the way due to your bitchiness.

At times, I may appear to have paradoxical views, e.g. "I am an antirealist and also at the same time a realist" but it is in a different sense and context.
... "the law of non-contradiction (LNC) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time" -Wiki
If anyone were to take my paradoxical views literally, that is due to their ignorance.

If there is anyone [hardcore p-realist] who will remain amiable in the discussion of opposing views, I don't mind spending time trashing out the issue with them.
So far, I have not come across a hardcore philosophical realist or anyone who seriously oppose my views who had not turned nasty, bitchy, insulting, snarky, mocking, throwing pejoratives, angry, - [naturally I will retaliate, avoid or ignore] thus generating hindrances that facilitate a deeper discussion into the issue.