• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Objective or subjective "reality"

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

S

swatcher

Skilled Investigator
Chuckleberryfinn states:

Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.

Reality does not exist in the mind. It has form and substance which remain whither the mind perceives it or no. Reality is an object; it works in a certain way which can be measured and tested. I'm not saying that we understand the object; we know that it has a form which exists outside of the human mind.

Consensus is not proof of an objective reality ("measured and tested"). Analytical philosophy also rejects the notion that reality is a "given" property of objects.

I believe in anti-realism. I think that an "objective reality" can only be perceived through the senses of a subjective observer. It is an electric/chemical process that happens at molecule level in the human brain. All reality has a phenomenological cause.

You write that our issue has been laid to rest. I'm very curious to hear about the when and how? Our debate has been going on since the beginning of philosophy. I'm not aware that the school of realism has put this baby to bed for good.
 
"Reality is an object; it works in a certain way which can be measured and tested. I'm not saying that we understand the object; we know that it has a form which exists outside of the human mind."

i have to say im with chuckleberryfin on this one.

i recently posted a link to the hubble space telescope's deep field images.

what the machine "sees" in a patch of sky that to our eyes looks empty, is to me proof that reality is external to our senses.
i dont doubt there are aspects of reality we are unequiped to percieve with the human system as we know it, but i do think we are(will be) able to build whatever nuts and bolts tools we will need in order to do so
 
to use the gorilla example again

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/09/psychology-perception-opportunity-ent-dream1007-cx_rw_1009wiseman.html

(excerpt from link above)
"The audience members are asked to watch the film and count the number of times the people in white T-shirts pass the basketball to one another. At the end of the demonstration, I ask one simple question: "Did you spot the gorilla?" Most people look at me blankly--because they have completely missed him.

When I show the film again, the reactions are fascinating. Most people are stunned into silence. Some laugh nervously. A few simply refuse to believe their eyes, and one or two look at their watches with a bored expression on their faces.

People miss the gorilla for the same reason they miss many opportunities in their lives. Before showing people the film, I explain that they are about to take part in an observation test, and have to count the number of times the basketball is passed from one person to another. At no point do I mention that the film might contain anything unusual, so nobody expects to see a gorilla. Or, to put it in more scientific terms, people's brains are simply not primed to see a man wearing a big, silly animal outfit. "

human perception isnt nearly as sharp as the camera's in most cases
the camera doesnt miss the gorilla, where most people do.

being the superior observer in this case perphaps its the cameras view that shapes reality
 
Back
Top