• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Objective Reality: We Can't Know It

Migrated topic.
I recommend a book called Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. Its basically a popular science book going over the history of QM and stuff like the double-slit experiment, Schrodinger's cat, EPR, Bell's theorem etc. The last couple of chapters are dedicated to looking at consciousness and modern ideas about it, going from Churchland to Chalmers and mentioning Libet's experiments in regards to free will. They end up exploring how QM and consciousness *may* be connected or related and the implications QM seems to suggest.

Its a very fun and easy read.
 
All arguments that reality is entirely subjective are ultimately self-contradictory - for if all thoughts are subjective, then the thought that all thoughts are subjective is itself subjective, not based on objective reality, and therefore, not an objectively true (ie, congruent with objective reality) statement. But if it is not an objectively true statement, then some thoughts aren't subjective - and reality can be known. But if it IS an objectively true statement, then we can make objectively true statements and have objectively true thoughts.

Yes, we color what is objectively real with our feelings, our experiences, our interpretations. Yet with practice, we can detach from all the things that color pure awareness, pure consciousness. We can step back from the chaos of our thoughts, and experience the silent observer, the underlying program beneath the subroutines of thought, the primary layer of awareness. When we do so, we experience reality - albeit a reduced reality, limited by the medium of human flesh and the capacity of our brains. Yet a small amount of ocean is still ocean, and so we can know reality, though not in it's entirety.

This is what fascinates me so much about hallucinogens - the ability to open up the gateway a bit more, and experience more of objective reality. While I believe we can know objective truth, I do not think we can know objective truth in it's entirety, any more than a chimp could understand quantum physics. A chimp perceives reality at the level of his capacity, and so can we. We humans are distinct, in that we can expand that capacity. Still, there are limits. As we progress and evolve over millions, billions and trillions of years into the future, our capacity for understanding levels of reality simply beyond our current physiology will of course increase.

In the end, as life populates the entire Universe, creating a universal Biosphere, I believe life will take control of the future evolution of the cosmos itself. I think to a certain extent this is inevitable - that the future that will be is able to effect a future-to-past causality, directing evolution to the desired end from the beginning. Causality is only from past-to-present from the perspective of those bound by time. Once time itself become another navigable dimension, there are no barriers to causation from what we call the future.
 
RealAwareness said:
All arguments that reality is entirely subjective are ultimately self-contradictory - for if all thoughts are subjective, then the thought that all thoughts are subjective is itself subjective, not based on objective reality, and therefore, not an objectively true (ie, congruent with objective reality) statement. But if it is not an objectively true statement, then some thoughts aren't subjective - and reality can be known. But if it IS an objectively true statement, then we can make objectively true statements and have objectively true thoughts.
Click to expand...
All subjective experience has a basis in objective reality. If you read the original post, I never say that reality is entirely subjective. In fact, I claim that the source of subjective experience is objective reality. I don’t see how subjective experience can exist without an objective source.

Just because thoughts are subjective (and ALL thoughts are subjective – this is inescapable), doesn’t mean that they can’t reflect objective truth. Not all subjective experiences are, as you seem to suggest, objectively false – not existing in objective reality. I’m also not sure how you define the term “objectively true”. Maybe a better term would be “objectively congruent”.

You appear to be confusing the notion of logical truth with ideas about subjective vs. objective reality. Logical truth, mathematical truth, etc. are always experienced subjectively. The truth or falsehood of a logical statement can be ascertained via formal proof. The process of logical or mathematical proof is experienced subjectively. Now here’s a good question to ponder: Are mathematics and logic objectively real? Are ideas in general objectively real? We know that all subjective experience has a basis in objective reality, so I guess the answer is yes, but we don’t know the nature of that objective basis.

It would be comforting to think that we can know objective reality, even if just a little piece. But we can’t ever be sure about how our subjective experiences relate to objective reality. There is an infinity of potential objective realities that can be responsible for our subjective experiences. Which one is the “right” or “true” one? Is there even a single “one”?
 
Good points, gibran2. I think "subjective experience that is objectively congruent to actual reality" is a good way of stating it, and would agree that subjective thoughts can be logically true, yet remain subjective by definition (it is, after all, the subject, not the object, that is having the thought!) I by no means meant to suggest that subjective experience is "false"; in point of fact, the subjective experience of Qualia is one of the strongest proofs to me in the existence of a non-reducible objective reality, but that is a different discussion.

I am trying to understand things in a balance between the extremes of nominalism \ solipsism (nothing is real \ nothing is real except me) and the other side of the spectrum, "we can know objective truth, and my objective truth is the correct one!". Both are categorically false, with the 2nd leading to all kinds of problems in relation to people killing each other to defend their respective understandings of "truth"; objective reality does exist, but how do we know objective reality? I think the scientific method is probably the best approach. We can't know objective truth in it's entirety, but I would like to think we can understand bits and pieces of it. This is, of course, my subjective wishes trying to impose themselves on the objective reality of being trapped in a subjective viewpoint :)

This is what I find appealing about philosophies of mind such as that found within Buddhism; the idea that our fundamental "mind" can exist apart from the body it dwells in, that with the dissolution of ego, we can experience reality as it is, not as we wish it be, or try to reduce it to be in an attempt to comprehend it. I don't know if this is actually possible, although there are some encouraging developments in the physics of consciousness put forth by Penrose-Hammeroff, that may give a scientific basis for such ideas - if consciousness is not an emergent phenomena, but a fundamental aspect of reality, then at least in principle, pure consciousness should be able to perceive reality as it is, by dispensing with the subject-object duality completely and simply perceiving what is ultimately itself.

Along these lines, inspired by the work of Penrose-Hammeroff, a recent paper has postulated the possibility of what is being termed "The Big Wow" - that at the moment of Creation, the Universe attained sufficient computing power to achieve awareness: a physics-based understanding of Panpsychism, assuming that the wave-function collapse theory of consciousness, aka ORCH-OR (Penrose-Hammeroff) proves to be correct, which at this stage is very much simply speculation. Check it out!
 
Back
Top Bottom