Thread: Start with Nothing

A mission, preferrably of top-secret nature, of which the fate of the universe may depend.

Originally Posted by Xei

What does 'objective' mean?

Look it up.

Originally Posted by really

The subjective is essentially the world of the observer. If there is no observer, there is no objective universe either.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Who thinks subjectivity has no actual existence or reality as 2., and is therefore not also objective?

Spoiler for One:

Originally Posted by really

Unless otherwise stated, the observer or subjectivity must not be excluded from speaking of objective truth

Who thinks the objective only means either 1. or 3.b?

Spoiler for Two:

Originally Posted by really

the "objective" truth is not the most persistent truth. Because having truth only applied to the outer world is obviously only half the story of reality, is it not?

What does Two have to do with definition 1? Anyway, that seems to be the correct one, let's use it.

What does 'material object' mean?

A form with substance, existing in the present moment.

A non-material object would be a form that is lacking one or both of the other two qualifiers.

What do 'form' and 'substance' mean? Define them. It seems to me that form means 'object' and substance means 'material'. What we have is a synonym, not a definition.

I'm not sure what the present moment has to do with the common meaning of 'material object', surely material objects are often said to have existed in the past?

Substance is a sensory adjective meaning something that affects our sense of touch (can also be applied to various technological extensions of physical contact). Form is a spatial reference meaning that a material object has specific spatial boundaries. A form is a spatial boundary, substance is a rule that enforces the boundary. No two material objects can exist within the same boundary because of their substance.

Having existed is a sort of past participle of the verb "to exist". Saying that something 'has existed' in the past implies that it does not exist in the present. Where is the past? Only in the mind. The past is not material, the present moment is the only time that material objects exist.

When I am dreaming I experience a sensation of touch, yet we don't refer to that as a material object.

Objects such as the wall behind my head; does that not have substance? My brain has no touch receptors, does that not have substance?

I can't think of anything in the physical world with 'form'. You seem to be conceptualising idealised versions of macroscopic objects (with the archaic philosophical concepts of extension and non-intersection), which in reality do not have the property you are ascribing to them. Particles are infinite curves of probability.

And what about gravity? Wouldn't we like that to fall under the definition of 'objective'? It definitely doesn't have 'form' as you defined it.

Atomic and sub-atomic Particles are not material objects. They don't have form or substance, except when they do in which case they are.

Gravity is not an object, it doesn't have form. It is material in that it affects our sense of touch in that we can 'feel' weight in the presence of a massive body; it has substance but not form. The massive body is the material object that the material non-object of gravity is associated with.

When you are dreaming and you experience the sensation of touch, that thing you are touching is a material object only in that present moment in much the same way that gravitational force is indistinguishable from acceleration within a specific frame of reference. You say that we don't normally refer to dream objects as being material objects but we normally only refer to dream objects in the past and not the present. If you refer to them in the present moment then you will most likely see them as material, unless you are lucid and realize that they are immaterial (you put your hand through them) or they are not objects (you make them dissapear/lose spatial boundaries).

So atoms and gravity aren't 'objective'? And objects in dreams are?

As far as I knew things like atoms and gravity were archetypes of objective entities, whereas objects in dreams are an archetype of subjective entities.

Has the definition gone wrong?

I don't know, I answered the question "what is a material object" not "what is the definition of objective". Objective is an adjective and material object is a noun. Not all material objects are objective and not all objective things are material objects. Unless of course objective is being taken out of its normal context and is being defined purely etymologically in which case objective means having the qualities of an object and all objects are objective but still not all objective things are objects. Some things share qualities with objects but are not objects.

In its normal context (paired with subjective) "objective" is a mode of thinking that originates with the object in question as opposed to the subject. An objective description is one that describes an object, whereas a subjective description is one that describes the effect of the object on the subject, usually the person supplying the description. "The ball is blue" is an objective statement." I see a blue ball" is a subjective statement.

Gravity and atoms are objective in that they can be described as sharing the qualities of material objects, and they are objective in the sense that we can speak about their existence independent from the describer. Atoms are material objects sometimes but not always, and gravity is a material component of objects but is not itself an object; it is objective in that not only does it share qualities with objects, it is actually a quality of objects.

As far as "objective and subjective entities" go, an objective entity would be Kant's "thing in itself" which can only be experienced by the thing in question. You are the only "objective entity" in your frame of reference. Subjective entities are those that can only be experienced through how they affect the objective entity; everything but you is a subjective entity in your frame of reference.

If you would like to test this, try describing an atom without referencing how it affects anything else.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't know, I answered the question "what is a material object" not "what is the definition of objective". Objective is an adjective and material object is a noun. Not all material objects are objective and not all objective things are material objects. Unless of course objective is being taken out of its normal context and is being defined purely etymologically in which case objective means having the qualities of an object and all objects are objective but still not all objective things are objects. Some things share qualities with objects but are not objects.

Are you kidding..? The entire point of this current branch of conversation was a definition of 'objective', if you were trying to participate you should have rejected really's definition and used your own. What was the point in continuing down an erroneous path..? Well, anyway:

In its normal context (paired with subjective) "objective" is a mode of thinking that originates with the object in question as opposed to the subject. An objective description is one that describes an object, whereas a subjective description is one that describes the effect of the object on the subject, usually the person supplying the description. "The ball is blue" is an objective statement." I see a blue ball" is a subjective statement.

Hm, okay.

What is the actual ontological difference, though, between saying, 'I see a blue ball', and, 'the ball is blue'? Are these not synonyms?

When you make objective statements such as F = ma, are you not simply codifying (expressing a pattern) in your subjective experience? I don't see any clear delineation here.

As far as "objective and subjective entities" go, an objective entity would be Kant's "thing in itself" which can only be experienced by the thing in question. You are the only "objective entity" in your frame of reference. Subjective entities are those that can only be experienced through how they affect the objective entity; everything but you is a subjective entity in your frame of reference.

I don't know what 'thing in itself' means... again it just sounds like a synonym?

What is the difference between an 'objective entity' here, or just a general entity, described under an objective 'mode of thinking', as before?

What does it mean for a rock to experience itself? If this is impossible, does this mean that a rock is not an objective entity? I don't agree with Kant on much, but I don't recall him requiring that a thing in itself can 'experience' itself.

If you would like to test this, try describing an atom without referencing how it affects anything else.

Thanks for this.

Kant doesn't argue that a rock must experience itself to be real, only that we cannot know a rock in an objective sense without being the rock; we can only know the subjective effects the rock has on us. Our knowledge of the rock is not really of the rock "in itself" but of the body of the rock's effects on our subjective experience.

There is a very significant difference between the two sentences, "The ball is blue" and "I see a blue ball". Its pretty easy to think of examples in which one them is true and the other is false. If you look at a green ball through yellow lenses (edit: I mean, lenses that block yellow), the sentence "the ball is blue" is false while "I see a blue ball" is true.

TBH, I saw that this conversation had devolved into a semantic argument so bad that significant time was being spent just on the definition of words. I didn't go back and read everything that lead to that situation, I just jumped in quickly to get it over with and steer things back in a more deeply philosophical direction.

I just realized that I responded to your post completely backwards.

Your post seems to be pretty backwards, too: a semantic argument is one that arises from ambiguous definitions. Requiring that a person defines their terms clearly is the exact opposite of semantic squabbles. You can't have a deep philosophical conversation about X in the first place if nobody seems to be able to actually describe what X is.

And in fact I don't think you can get any deeper philosophically than realising how narrow the scope of human enquiry is, and understanding exactly what the human mind is and how it fits into nature. Which is what I was in the process of conveying.

I still wouldn't say you have clearly defined 'objective'. I think the Kant thing can be laid to rest as another synonym. As to the first attempt:

What does 'the ball is blue' mean? When we say it, we don't mean it to refer to a property within the actual object itself, because I could shine red light on it, and the ball would be black. So the 'objective' thing you're referring to is the light itself; 'the light hitting my eye caused by the ball is the wavelength correlated with me experiencing blue'.

What does 'I see a blue ball' mean? Well as above what it actually means is 'I see blue light' (in the shape of a ball). But doesn't this mean the same thing as 'I am experiencing something correlated with the perception of blue'?

In your example (ignoring for now that blue light wouldn't actually go through the lens), 'I see a blue ball' is true, as it means 'my perceptions agree with the notion that blue light is hitting my eye', whilst 'the ball is blue', which we unravel to actually mean 'the light hitting my eye caused by the ball is blue' is also true.

So again the distinction isn't very clear. I would suggest that this is just a pathological case in which language ties itself up and hides the real meaning. In reality, if there is a yellow lens in front of us, we know that the statement 'I see a blue ball' is actually disingenuous, and actually means 'the ball appears to be blue but actually isn't'; inside our subjective world model the ball is still the same colour as it is objectively, and indeed it wouldn't make any sense to say otherwise.

Can you explain the distinction for a clearer example? For example, 'I see three points of light'. What does the supposedly converse statement 'there are three points of light' mean?

Here is a different explanatory route that I would like you to try: try to define for me what a square 'is'. I literally don't know what one is, try to explain it to me.

Originally Posted by Xei

What does Two have to do with definition 1? Anyway, that seems to be the correct one, let's use it.

What does 'material object' mean?

Seriously? Material object. There really isn't many alternative definitions to be confused with. Physical. Shape, tangible. The second spoiler has to do with it because saying that the material or tangible universe is the only objective/real world is fallacious because it rejects the subjective world from which it arose. Hence "half the story", as a blunt phrase. If there is no material world perceived, then reality must not exist. Obviously fallacious.


Response to last couple of posts:

Xei, you're really over-complicating the matter here. There's no need for this.

Xaqaria is pointing the simple fact that the two closely similar statements can mean quite different things, and hence be true or false independent of the other. By comparison, if one were to look at the green ball through a yellow lense-filter and take that "ball-is-blue" observation as the literal material world, instead of merely the altered perception alone, then what would occur if the lense were to be taken off? The ball would appear green! In the latter case, both the statements "ball is green" and "the ball appears green" would then be true, for arguments sake.

Thus, in the former example it is more safe to say "the ball appears blue," instead of "the ball actually is blue" (the word actually - meaning the color of the ball surface, not the light of the ball through the lense filter)"

My essential point throughout the past several posts was to point out that, analogically, just because the ball is actually green, does not mean to say "the ball appears to be blue" was false; it was a truth in another context. Instead, it means the statement "the ball is blue" is false! I have never been required to redefine things although I may have been confusing for other reasons.

So here are some examples of how the truth persists:

The world...

• is a sphere - true as confirmed by numerous tests/observation to this day.
• appears spherical - true from viewing in outer space.
• appears flat - true from walking the earth; judging from horizon.
• is flat - true to the extent of belief or comprehension of the observation alone (same reason for first bullet point).
• appears as a star - true from the observation many lightyears away.
• is made of plastic - true when referencing a plastic globe.

Originally Posted by really

Seriously? Material object. There really isn't many alternative definitions to be confused with. Physical. Shape, tangible.

Synonyms. Can you really not tell the difference between definition and empty words? I am a child with no knowledge of these words or concepts. You have so far taught me absolutely nothing, 'material object' could so far mean 'large object' as far as I know. You complain that this is pointless and yet you seem utterly unable to make any progress.

"I am a child with no knowledge of these words or concepts."

But are you? No.

I bet your best guess is correct. What is your best guess?

Stop wasting thread space and grow up.

Wittgenstein and Hume were actually big fat babies who wasted paper. Great work really.

Whenever you would like to continue discussing philosophy without losing your rag, please just ask.

Another concept swooshes over Xei's head, and apparently that means he won the argument -_-

>Claims that analyzing the language in which philosophical propositions are expressed is trivial
>Claims to be doing serious philosophy

This is the point where I add yet another cliche and post a meme of the Joker saying "not sure if serious".

What if nothing has always existed and so something must also have always existed?

Using the reason of the property of nothing, it is obvious that nothing can not be created but is already there thus means it has existed always.

Indeed...

Originally Posted by really

saying that the material or tangible universe is the only objective/real world is fallacious because it rejects the subjective world from which it arose. Hence "half the story", as a blunt phrase. If there is no material world perceived, then reality must not exist. Obviously fallacious.

Wait - what do you mean by the subjective world? Subjectivity is simply a person's experience of the world.. it is not a world.

When people talk about "the world" they sometimes mean just the planet we live on, or sometimes they're referring to the entire universe. What you're calling "the subjective world" is nothing more than a framework of personal reference through which we observe the actual world.

In what way did the material/tangible universe 'arise' from someone's subjective experience of it? The tangible world was around long before there was any living thing to observe it and create subjective experiences of it - unless you're talking about a God who created the universe?

Originally Posted by really

The world...

• is a sphere - true as confirmed by numerous tests/observation to this day.
• appears spherical - true from viewing in outer space.
• appears flat - true from walking the earth; judging from horizon.
• is flat - true to the extent of belief or comprehension of the observation alone (same reason for first bullet point).
• appears as a star - true from the observation many lightyears away.
• is made of plastic - true when referencing a plastic globe.

I must disagree with the last 4 statements.

It isn't the world that appears flat - it's only the small portion of it a person is capable of observing visually. And of course, until we devised ways of extending our capacity to observe this was the only impression of the world (the planet Earth) anyone had. People made the mistake of projecting their incomplete observations onto the entirety of the world.

Your next item is of course an assertion that because a small portion of the earth's surface appears to be flat then subjectively to that person it is flat. This is not truth, this is belief. Confusing the two is not only unproductive but dangerous and I think rather foolish.

A planet may look like a star from a great enough distance, but enough observation will prove that it moves in ways stars don't - that in fact it orbits a star. So a planet only appears to be a star to the uninformed or ignorant. A little knowledge and observation can easily dispel these misconceptions.

The world is not made of plastic. If you're 'referencing a plastic globe' you are not referencing the world.

If you can honestly say that you believe "the world is made of plastic" is a true statement and that the objective material world stops existing if there's no-one observing it, then you obviously aren't talking about the same material world the rest of us are.

It seems you believe that a person's subjective experience of the world is somehow more real than the world itself. In some respects I can agree with this - to that person their own subjective beliefs and impressions and thoughts make up everything they know about the world or the universe, and of course are in some ways more important to them than the actual facts of things they misunderstand. I also agree that any thought a person has exists - as a thought, and even if it's wrong it still exists for them until it is corrected. But where we disagree is that I say they're simply wrong and that their own subjective experiences are only that - subjective experiences - and that the objective universe is what it is regardless of whether a person understands it correctly or not.

Through scientific observation and experimentation we as a species attempt to correct as many of these misperceptions as possible and to come to a closer approximation of just what exists in the real world. We've made great progress, dispelling the illusion of a flat earth and many others, but of course we still have a ways to go.

** edit

Ok sorry - my dog sat down and gave me the most pitiful look imaginable and I had to take her for a walk to alleviate it. Now I can finish what I wanted to say..

I THINK what you're basically getting at is that as humans we can't actually know with absolute certainty exactly what the material world we exist in is like, and that what we call objective knowledge of it is really still subjective. Ok, I agree with this. But only that far, and I think you're taking it farther.

Here is what I believe (and what I'd say the majority of people believe):

1) An objective universe exists, in which we live.

2) We all have subjective experiences of it, and in fact we're not capable of experiencing the universe or any part of it in a way that's entirely free of subjective bias.

3) However, in order to free ourselves of as much subjective bias as possible we've created the scientific method of observation and experimentation. By using this, we can largely dispel illusions which are a danger of untested subjective beliefs.

Xei, your accusation that everything is "a synonym" is getting tired. Every definition is a like a synonym; it is a string of words that has the same meaning of the one word you are defining whereas an actual synonym is different in that it must be a single word that shares the same meaning. This specious dismissal doesn't hold water.

DarkMatters; you say that subjectivity is merely a person's experience of the world and not the world itself; What is the world itself? How does one know anything about the world itself? The only way to have any knowledge of the world is through one's experience of it, and therefore the only knowledge we have is subjective knowledge. We have no way to know the world in itself separate from our experience of it. What we call objective knowledge is merely the consensus of many people's subjective knowledge.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Xei, your accusation that everything is "a synonym" is getting tired. Every definition is a like a synonym; it is a string of words that has the same meaning of the one word you are defining whereas an actual synonym is different in that it must be a single word that shares the same meaning.

No, it isn't. This is the whole purpose of the dialogue. I don't think you can be considering this issue seriously enough; if every definition is just a synonym, how did you ever learn any words to begin with? You need to consider the fundamental epistemological issue of language acquisition, and in fact all mental concept acquisition.