chieveboy:


We're saying whatever humans are seeing is actually not what they thought (or assumed) it was even if they agree that what they are seeing is what they agreed they are seeing.

This is true in the light of current information on the physics of what to a human is 'reality', and even what is not real to him.



We can't talk about this one yet, we must parse through the physics of reality and what it might be, and then decided if indeed objectivity is possible as far as the human sensoria is concerned.

I already said objective perception by humans is narrow. That you are not seeing the entire spectrum doesn't mean the perception is not objective.

LordReed:


I already said objective perception by humans is narrow. That you are not seeing the entire spectrum doesn't mean the perception is not objective.

Oh okay. I think you have come home then.

Since you are not seeing the entire spectrum, 'reality' or 'objective' then is us saying "look, let's just agree this is objective ('whole' and 'independent' 'fact'), even though this is not so.

Cc triplechoice

chieveboy:


Oh okay. I think you have come home then.

Since you are not seeing the entire spectrum, 'reality' or 'objective' then is us saying "look, let's just agree this is objective ('whole' and 'independent' 'fact'), even though this is not so.

Cc triplechoice

No, it is not saying whole and independent. It is saying that what you are perceiving is a present objective part of reality.

LordReed:


No, it is not saying whole and independent. It is saying that what you are perceiving is a present objective part of reality.

Exactly. I even boldened the keyword for you.

chieveboy:


Exactly. I even boldened the keyword for you.

Sure.

chieveboy:


Oh okay. I think you have come home then.

Since you are not seeing the entire spectrum, 'reality' or 'objective' then is us saying "look, let's just agree this is objective ('whole' and 'independent' 'fact'), even though this is not so.

Cc triplechoice

You're using not seeing the "entire spectrum" to argue that nothing is objectively real ?

Yes or no ?

Who Tinubu is , is not the same as what he is ,the entire spectrum which "we" cannot know . You seem not to know the difference .

Because the former can't be known, doesn't mean he is not "there" He is .

The entity ,Tinubu, is not an illusion that "we" have collectively agreed to exist .

Do you dispute that ?

triplechoice:


You're using not seeing the "entire spectrum" to argue that nothing is objectively real ?

Yes or no ?

Who Tinubu is , is not the same as what he is ,the entire spectrum which "we" cannot know . You seem not to know the difference .

Because the former can't be known, doesn't mean he is not "there" He is .

The entity ,Tinubu, is not an illusion that "we" have collectively agreed to exist .

Do you dispute that ?

We're saying everything is an 'illusion' to the degree that they are not being perceived in whatever original state they might have been, and that the observer being unique is incapable of observing ANYTHING exactly the same way as the next person.

Secondly when perceiving, The mind 'makes up things' and 'completes' the parts to create meaning relative to it's acceptances or agreements of what it feels is real. This phenomena introduces an 'eraticity factor' to the very tool humans depend on for perception.

Given the above, the word 'real' is relative and this is not the first time it's being hinted at. Yea?

The attached is a popular image on the internet. Notice how the human mind makes up parts of the components to create meaning. Will another mammal or another biokind see a human face? I don't think so.

chieveboy:


We're saying everything is an 'illusion' to the degree that they are not being perceived in whatever original state they might have been, and that the observer being unique is incapable of observing ANYTHING exactly the same way as the next person.

Secondly when perceiving, The mind 'makes up things' and 'completes' the parts to create meaning relative to it's acceptances or agreements of what it feels is real. This phenomena introduces an 'eraticity factor' to the very tool humans depend on for perception.

Given the above, the word 'real' is relative and this is not the first time it's being hinted at. Yea?

The attached is a popular image on the internet. Notice how the human mind makes up parts of the components to create meaning. Will another mammal or another biokind see a human face? I don't think so.

You seem to be conflating several concepts. Our ability to recognise patterns has nothing to do with reality being objective nor does our intuitive capacities. It would be like saying animals do not perceive objective reality because they can neither recognise patterns like we can nor do they have intuitive thoughts like we have.

LordReed:


You seem to be conflating several concepts. Our ability to recognise patterns has nothing to do with reality being objective nor does our intuitive capacities. It would be like saying animals do not perceive objective reality because they can neither recognise patterns like we can nor do they have intuitive thoughts like we have.

If anything I have been direct to the point.

Our ability to recognize apportion objectivity to things stems from our object for perception (eyes, nose, skin, mind). So it has everything to do with objectivity. Without those, we can forget about objectivity or subjectivity.



All I am saying from the onset is that any so-called objectivity is merely a highly compartmentalized and consequently untrue version of what is being perceived, hence is actually subjective ultimately. This is not just dreams, visions and extra-sensory perceptions (esp) people have, anything at all.

We merely condition our mind (or agree) that what we label as "objective" are global constants. This is relative, hence not totally objective.

chieveboy:


If anything I have been direct to the point.

Our ability to recognize apportion objectivity to things stems from our object for perception (eyes, nose, skin, mind). So it has everything to do with objectivity. Without those, we can forget about objectivity or subjectivity.



All I am saying from the onset is that any so-called objectivity is merely a highly compartmentalized and consequently untrue version of what is being perceived, hence is actually subjective ultimately. This is not just dreams, visions and extra-sensory perceptions (esp) people have, anything at all.

We merely condition our mind (or agree) that what we label as "objective" are global constants. This is relative, hence not totally objective.

Define the word subjective because you seem to be using it in a different way from me.

LordReed:


Define the word subjective because you seem to be using it in a different way from me.

Yea I thought we should have done this earlier:

Subjective: Experience as perceived by a subject relative to the state of their sensoria (nose, eyes, skin, state of mind...).

Objective (Based on conventional definitions): Perception not influenced by subjective influences.

chieveboy:


Yea I thought we should have done this earlier:

Subjective: Experience as perceived by a subject relative to the state of their sensoria (nose, eyes, skin, state of mind...).

Objective (Based on conventional definitions): Perception not influenced by subjective influences.

Great so neither of these definitions match up to your conclusion. Reality exists or persists outside of our ability to perceive it so our act of perceiving it does nothing to it.

chieveboy:


Yea I thought we should have done this earlier:

Subjective: Experience as perceived by a subject relative to the state of their sensoria (nose, eyes, skin, state of mind...).

You experience with your mind, where is the organ called mind in the body?

A person born blind has never seen light or darkness before, our eyes evoke "reality".
There won't be sound without eardrums, we evoke sound.

Close your eyes and subjectively/objectively think of a color that has never existed before.

Maynman:

You experience with your mind, where is the organ called mind in the body?

A person born blind has never seen light or darkness before, our eyes evoke "reality".
There won't be sound without eardrums, we evoke sound.

Close your eyes and subjectively/objectively think of a color that has never existed before.

Your biological brain, the the cortical network (spine, nerves etc), down to every cell in your body is Mind.

LordReed:


Great so neither of these definitions match up to your conclusion. Reality exists or persists outside of our ability to perceive it so our act of perceiving it does nothing to it.

Exactly, it's why I said all we've been branding as reality or objectivity all the while is merely us agreeing to label our limited views (of larger and broader object, perspective or experience) as being objective and real in the sense of the word while it is not.

chieveboy:


Exactly, it's why I said all we've been branding as reality or objectivity all the while is merely us agreeing to label our limited views (of larger and broader object, perspective or experience) as being objective and real in the sense of the word while it is not.

So these words that I wrote and you are reading are not objectively the same?

chieveboy:


Yea I thought we should have done this earlier:

Subjective: Experience as perceived by a subject relative to the state of their sensoria (nose, eyes, skin, state of mind...).

Objective (Based on conventional definitions): Perception not influenced by subjective influences.

One needs to be sure of what you have described
So,

1. Provide examples of how "a subject" perceives those experiences relative to the state of their "sensorial" nose ,eyes ,skin ,etc.
2."perception not influenced by subjective influences " .How does this happen . Example or examoles also needed too so one can picture accurately what you 're referring to.

LordReed:


So these words that I wrote and you are reading are not objectively the same?

Exactly. Depending on my mental state, I could come back and tell you "sorry I thought your wrote...." instead.

I also could have visual issues and not be able to read them entirely. So I am reading what you wrote by depending heavily on the quality of my visual 'perceptors' and the capacity of my mind to interpret and make meaning of what you wrote.

What you wrote hence is not universal as you will have it, and the idea of objectivity is becoming a mere agreement to accept...

chieveboy:


Exactly, it's why I said all we've been branding as reality or objectivity all the while is merely us agreeing to label our limited views (of larger and broader object, perspective or experience) as being objective and real in the sense of the word while it is not.

Then ,tell us how we should correctly describe it

chieveboy:


Your biological brain, the the cortical network (spine, nerves etc), down to every cell in your body is Mind.

Wrong, the mind is an abstraction, it does not exist.

The process of walking belongs to the legs.
The process of thinking belongs to the mind.
The brain is needed to support both.

The mind thinks, the Heart feels.
You have a mind and a heart, you are not a mind or heart.

triplechoice:

One needs to be sure of what you have described
So,

1. Provide examples of how "a subject" perceives those experiences relative to the state of their "sensorial" nose ,eyes ,skin ,etc.

Very well, even though I'm surprised you're asking this.

Example: Dangote cement is agreed to be a cement product with distinct quantity and quality. Left to erstwhile definitions, that product is Objectively Dangote Cement.

Why? Because of its quantity and quality (compositions, branding etc). This is the yardstick for establishing a global on the objectivity of Dangote Cement.

Not going too far, if I can't see the qualities (because I am visually impaired), I am not able to join the group of those who say Dangote Cement is objectively Dangote Cement. My handicap prevents me from that agreement.

Since no two people are alike psycho-biologically, it means we can possible never observe anything the same way. This is more true given the fact that even what we thought were seeing isn't entirely what is there to see, for us to delimit the bounds of its reality and existence.

So we merely agree to work with what we are and have for the sake of 'peace' and order to reign. We can't kill ourselves...

2."perception not influenced by subjective influences " .How does this happen . Example or examoles also needed too so one can picture accurately what you 're referring to.

If i stated what you quoted here, this must be a mistake. I must have meant "perception is influenced by subjective dynamics" or so. This is in line with even my original argument from the beginning.

Look at the attached image, it is the same spider we all thought we objectively agreed is a spider. If you send someone this image and say it's a spider, they may beg to differ

chieveboy:


Exactly. Depending on my mental state, I could come back and tell you "sorry I thought your wrote...." instead.

I also could have visual issues and not be able to read them entirely. So I am reading what you wrote by depending heavily on the quality of my visual 'perceptors' and the capacity of my mind to interpret and make meaning of what you wrote.

What you wrote hence is not universal as you will have it, and the idea of objectivity is becoming a mere agreement to accept...

I am not asking about your perception of the words, I mean the words themselves. Are they objectively existing outside of your perception?

chieveboy:


Exactly. Depending on my mental state, I could come back and tell you "sorry I thought your wrote...." instead.

That's exactly what the mind those, you don't think, your mind does it for you, just like you don't walk, your leg does it for you, you are neither a leg or a mind.

LordReed:


I am not asking about your perception of the words, I mean the words themselves. Are they objectively existing outside of your perception?

"How do I know it is objectively existing" is what you should ask lol. You can't throw me away out of the 'agreement' and still ask me if it exists. What we don't know is not objective na. Objectivity is actually arrived at by a (substantial) Collective.

chieveboy:


"How do I know it is objectively existing" is what you should ask lol. You can't throw me away out of the 'agreement' and still ask me if it exists. What we don't know is not objective na. Objectivity is actually arrived at by a (substantial) Collective.

OK. I don't argue with solipsists or enter solipsistic traps so have a good one.

LordReed:


OK. I don't argue with solipsists or enter solipsistic traps so have a good one.

What are you talking about this time man?

LordReed:


OK. I don't argue with solipsists or enter solipsistic traps so have a good one.

Oh. A very suitable description of what he has been doing on a thread he created himself .

triplechoice:


Oh. A very suitable description of what he has been doing on a thread he created himself .

Ah, and I will really love to hear your views on the yardsticks aused to determine Objectivity. I will do this popcorn in hand.

Cc lordreed.

Maynman:

Wrong, the mind is an abstraction, it does not exist.

The process of walking belongs to the legs.
The process of thinking belongs to the mind.
The brain is needed to support both.

The mind thinks, the Heart feels.
You have a mind and a heart, you are not a mind or heart.

Okay, that's your perspective.

chieveboy:


Okay, that's your perspective.

At least, it's real and solid, not a fantasy, that's a deeper ditch

chieveboy:


What are you talking about this time man?

You are either advocating a solipsistic position or you just unwittingly created a solipsistic trap.

LordReed:


You are either advocating a solipsistic position or you just unwittingly created a solipsistic trap.

...or that since you couldn't address my response to you, you brought this angle as your classic withdrawal measures.

Else, I cannot see how objectivity is established exclusive to observers.

By the way do you know what is purtanism?