Reality: Subjective or Objective?

[KneeLess]

I want to argue over where reality exists, inside the mind, or outside. My arguement for reality is that it is subjective, and the evidence is actually quite surprising. I use the word evidence very lightly here. :)

The one reality theory dictates that there is a central reality that cannot be changed on the lowest level, that is, it's existance. If it's changed on a higher level, let's say, perception, then that person would be mentally unstable to some degree. The problem with this is, nobody would know how accurate their perception of reality actually is, and there in itself is the fundamental flaw. Stay with me. Because know one can know with absolute certainty that their reality is true or not, their entire perception of the world might be different than the next person. This is important because then we have differing opinions on what is correct, etc. In reality (hah!), there is only one truth, with different (wrong) perceptions of it.

But, in my proposed theory on realities is that many realities exist. That is, reality only exists inside the few cubic inches that is your brain. Let's say that Joe views the world as a completely non-static world that constantly changes. Buildings change around, animals change into people and vice versa, i.e., a permanant acid trip. What, in the true sense of the word, makes this wrong? Nothing. In the multiple reality theory, there is a general main reality, but instead of this being one mass, it is many. Let me use an example. Instead of reality being one thing, let's say like a very big building, it is made up of many many smaller builings occupying the same area as the larger one. In the big building there are many people with many types of glasses, each slightly different. In the small building there are no glasses, the buildings are merely slightly different than each other. In the big building model, some people have pretty broken glasses, in the small, the people simply have odd buildings.

This is a pretty interesting topic to dicuss, and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[FruitandNut]

Since my perception and understanding of existence definitively comes from my 'inner man' and all my knowledge comes via others' 'inner men' and my own, everything finally appears to come down to subjectivity. The gizmo that produces cognition is irrational in its processes anyway.

[Fyshhed]

Since most of our distorted perceptions of reality can come to terms of agreement on certain things, (The grass is green?) then I might offer that either A) We are all equally distorted and the grass is, in fact, purple. or B) we are correct and our perceptions are not distorted.

For those fortunate souls who see the purple grass for what it really is, the majority of us might laugh him off as insane, when only he sees the truth. ;?

[HappyLady]

For the sake of the debate, I'd say reality is objective. Perceptions may distort the objective reality, because perceptions are subjective. The terms I would really use would be "outer reality" (objective and unchanging) and "inner reality" (subjective and changing).

As Fyshhed said, we can come to agreements that the grass is "green." While your "green" maybe be my "purple" and someone else's "red", we still all agree that the grass is green. Therefore, reality is objective, because the grass simply *is*. That is the outer reality...grass is.

Where reality becomes the inner reality is that we don't awlays agree on what color the grass is. Seasons are changing, the grass is taking on a greenish/yellowish/brownish color. You say it is "green", I say it is "yellow", and someone else says it is "brown." But whatever grass objectively, outwardly *is*, doesn't change with our perception of it. Perceptions can't change anything except our inner reality. You may be able to convince me to see it as "green" and no longer see it as "yellow." My inner reality changes to coincide with yours. But all the while, the grass *is* and that is objective and unchanging.

[Zhavric]

But, in my proposed theory on realities is that many realities exist. That is, reality only exists inside the few cubic inches that is your brain. Let's say that Joe views the world as a completely non-static world that constantly changes. Buildings change around, animals change into people and vice versa, i.e., a permanant acid trip. What, in the true sense of the word, makes this wrong? Nothing.

Joe is not "wrong" because wrong is the incorrect term to use here. If Joe perceives a world where animals become people etc., then that is what Joe perceives.

The question then becomes one of consistency. Joe's perception is inconsistent with the perceptions of the majority. If we are under the contraint that no one can really "know" what's real / we all may be trapped in the Matrix / brain in a jar, then we must look for consistencies in reality. When we look at a dog, is it a dog or is it a dog becoming a person? 99.9999% of the population say "Just a dog", but Joe may say "Dog becoming Walter Cronkite."

To ground the situation back into the real world, we observe Joe to have perceptions that are inconsistent with reality as we know it. We must then determine, as a society, if Joe's perceptions constitute a danger to himself & others / if Joe is able to make adult decisions for himself. Again, Joe is not "right" or "wrong" in his perceptions: he is simply deviating from the collective norm.


In the multiple reality theory, there is a general main reality, but instead of this being one mass, it is many. Let me use an example. Instead of reality being one thing, let's say like a very big building, it is made up of many many smaller builings occupying the same area as the larger one. In the big building there are many people with many types of glasses, each slightly different. In the small building there are no glasses, the buildings are merely slightly different than each other. In the big building model, some people have pretty broken glasses, in the small, the people simply have odd buildings.

I apologize, but you lost me here. I want to understand what you are stating. Please provide another example as I would enjoy continuing this discussion.

Consider this: Let us say that Joe is one of the individuals wearing a strange set of glasses in the building you mentioned above. His glasses cause him to perceive a hostile dog as a trusted friend. Joe says, "JIM! Good to see you!" and goes to embrace his "friend" only to be attacked by the dog.

The point of this example is to show that Joe's reality is not dictated by his perception of it. Reality is whatever reality is regardless of which glasses he is wearing. A dangerous dog perceived as a friend is still a dangerous dog.

This is reminding me of an old role-playing game I used to play back in my nerdy days.

[Ibelsd]

I tend to agree with HL on this subject. Reality is not a perception. It is an "is" as she put it. Out perceptions don't change the world around us. Only our actions do. My perceptions guide my actions, and in that way, can influence reality. Using the dog example. Dogs smell fear so to speak. If I perceive the dog as a threat and show fear, I influence the dog's behavior to one that I perceive. If I perceive the dog as non-threatening, I may influence the dog to be tame by my lack of fear. In either case, it is my action of showing or not showing fear which influences reality.

As a side note, the reason this topic really intrigues me is the power that the winner gains. For those who would like to argue that everything is subjective, individual ability, skill, and production are moot. It is acceptable to take something made by one person and give it to those who need it when everything is subjective. Who's to say who owns the intellectual property rights of gidget A? Who is to say who owns what? Since everything is subjective, then how can we rightfully say who has produced what? Or who should benefit. On the other hand, in a world where objectivity is the rule, then concepts like skill, ability, and production become valued. It is recognized that without some highly abled individual some process would fail. That individual is then prized. The rights of the individual in general are more highly regarded in a world in which objective reason is the standard.

[FruitandNut]

For the sake of the debate, I'd say reality is objective. Perceptions may distort the objective reality, because perceptions are subjective. The terms I would really use would be "outer reality" (objective and unchanging) and "inner reality" (subjective and changing).

As Fyshhed said, we can come to agreements that the grass is "green." While your "green" maybe be my "purple" and someone else's "red", we still all agree that the grass is green. Therefore, reality is objective, because the grass simply *is*. That is the outer reality...grass is.

Where reality becomes the inner reality is that we don't awlays agree on what color the grass is. Seasons are changing, the grass is taking on a greenish/yellowish/brownish color. You say it is "green", I say it is "yellow", and someone else says it is "brown." But whatever grass objectively, outwardly *is*, doesn't change with our perception of it. Perceptions can't change anything except our inner reality. You may be able to convince me to see it as "green" and no longer see it as "yellow." My inner reality changes to coincide with yours. But all the while, the grass *is* and that is objective and unchanging.
HappyLady, may we therefore summise thus,
Reality without perception or interpretation is objective, but without perception or interpretation reality has no meaning. In order to imbue it with meaning we have to move reality into the irrational and subjective world of perception and interpretation.

[HappyLady]

HappyLady, may we therefore summise thus,
Reality without perception or interpretation is objective, but without perception or interpretation reality has no meaning. In order to imbue it with meaning we have to move reality into the irrational and subjective world of perception and interpretation.

Meaning is also subjective. I wouldn't say that "objective meaning" doesn't exist somewhere out there in the vast land of the unknown, but if it does exist, humans can't know it from their eyes. It is my belief that an "objective meaning" exists in that kingdom of absolute truth. But here on earth, we only have "truth". I think the closest absolute truth we have is that something *is*. While we may not agree that grass is green. We agree that grass *is*. But even that is not an absolute as someone could argue from the perspective that we don't exist and Earth is nothing more than an illusion. That is what makes truth subjective here in this existence.

I agree with you, but would reword your last sentence to say "In order to imbue it with our own meaning, we have to move reality into the irrational and subjective world of perception and interpretation."

[KneeLess]

I apologize, but you lost me here. I want to understand what you are stating. Please provide another example as I would enjoy continuing this discussion.
I wrote that at 4am. I understand your confusion, but I'll just restate the same example. There are two large buildings, one building is the one reality building, the other, is the multiple reality building. In the one reality building, there is only one room, and every single person has glasses (maybe a few don't, etc.). These glasses distort how each person views the room. Some people's glasses are so incredibly broken it's hardly the room anymore. In the other building, each person has his own room, but they don't have any glasses to distort their view. Many of the rooms are similar, but a select view are very different. This is how I think the two realities should be represented.

[Galendir]

FruitandNut,
How do you understand the term 'irrational'?

Fyshhed,
I find it amusing that you used the example of grass being green, and the question of distortion of our perceptions. My own two eyes perceive differing hues of green when observing grass on a sunny day.

[Fyshhed]

Fyshhed,
I find it amusing that you used the example of grass being green, and the question of distortion of our perceptions. My own two eyes perceive differing hues of green when observing grass on a sunny day.
Perhaps some people have multiple distortions of reality within themselves. Gal, bud, you might want to investigate a psychiatrist on that matter ;)

But the reference was to a hypothetical two people staring at the same patch of grass at the same time, if that clarifies my analogy. :P

[Galendir]

What I meant was that my left eye perceives a different hue of green that that which my right eye perceives.
So would this accord more with 'A' or 'B' of your analysis?

[KneeLess]

What I meant was that my left eye perceives a different hue of green that that which my right eye perceives.
So would this accord more with 'A' or 'B' of your analysis?
This seems to give more proof to the objective side, the fact that simple changing the way you percieve something (left eye vs. right eye), but it does not defeat the subjective one. In a subjective reality theory, you have to remember that everything is dynamic. Grass changing slight hues of colors is really not much of a change in a dynamic reality and is almost expected to happen.

I believe one of the harder points of subjectivism to believe is the fact that consciousness creates reality. The nature of reality as related to any given consciousness is created and governed by that consciousness. There are however, a few problems with the fact of consciousness governing actions. I won't reveal them to you, as that's your job. But I can, and will refute them if you do so discover them.


Perhaps some people have multiple distortions of reality within themselves.
People have different states of mind, which could have different consciousnesses, which is different realities.

The point of this example is to show that Joe's reality is not dictated by his perception of it. Reality is whatever reality is regardless of which glasses he is wearing. A dangerous dog perceived as a friend is still a dangerous dog.
I laughed when I read this, but it is a very good point. After being attacked, Joe may think that his friend attacked him, for reasons unknown.

[FruitandNut]

A dangerous dog perceived as a friend is still a dangerous dog.
But what if that perception is right?

I think you are confusing potentially dangerous animals with the real thing. Between the two there a myriad of variables that will dictate what happens. Those who have potentially dangerous animals take calculated risks, those who do not have their animals under control then potentially risk the general public.

A friend of ours was a bus driver in Grimsby, North Lincolnshire, UK. A circus had pitched camp on a large plot of cleared ground opposite his depot. He turned into the alley way that led to the office where he was due to clock off duty and cash up and was confronted by three fully grown 'African' lionesses. In his words, 'after pausing a moment to sh*t my trousers, I looked around for help'. As he looked about he spotted some police, some armed, coming out of the Central Police Station about two hundred yards away; and a circus van that was closer. As the driver was obviously looking for the strays, he signaled that they were down the alleyway. The circus hand backed up the van laid a small trail of meat into the van and open the back doors wide to cut off as far as possible any retreat out of the alley. My friend went into the office by a different door and used a chair to gently 'coax' the animals back towards the van, they soon picked up the scent of the meat and along with the circus hand, a couple of policemen and poles and a net, they were locked into the van.

My point being, that at all times those animals were potentially dangerous, risk calculations were made, the animals also had some human conditioning that in certain circumstances rendered them less dangerous, and in other circumstances would make them more dangerous. If at any time one of those animals had felt threatened there would have been human and/ or animal casualties. While there was the potential for this to happen, it didn't.

ps. Extremist, so called, animal rights activists had cut the heavy rope netting covering one of the animals' tunnels.

pps. If you search the web, ref. Evening Telegraph (Grimsby) circa 1990, and bang in circus - lionesses - bus driver -bus depot, you may get the story in precis form.

[FruitandNut]

I agree with you, but would reword your last sentence to say "In order to imbue it with our own meaning, we have to move reality into the irrational and subjective world of perception and interpretation."

The only meaning that we possess is our own, surely?

[HappyLady]

The only meaning that we possess is our own, surely?

I don't know. I would say the only meaning we "possess" is our own, but that does not necessarily mean that is the only meaning there *is*. When I ask myself "What is the point of existing," there seems to be some some "greater purpose" for many (whether it is a belief that we serve God or nature.) While even that idea is a subjective one, it doesn't necessarily that some kind of external meaning doesn't exist...somewhere. We just can't perceive it.

[FruitandNut]

I don't know. I would say the only meaning we "possess" is our own, but that does not necessarily mean that is the only meaning there *is*. When I ask myself "What is the point of existing," there seems to be some some "greater purpose" for many (whether it is a belief that we serve God or nature.) While even that idea is a subjective one, it doesn't necessarily that some kind of external meaning doesn't exist...somewhere. We just can't perceive it.

I think most of us are aware the other people around us have there own particular understanding of meaning. Through debate and consensus we may come to a collective agreement as to a definition of the reality of something, but in the end it is our perception of that concensus and definition, and even then some fine detail may differ. Is there such a thing as collective subjectivity? Does a collective of agreed subjectivity make for objectivity?

[HappyLady]

I think most of us are aware the other people around us have there own particular understanding of meaning. Through debate and consensus we may come to a collective agreement as to a definition of the reality of something, but in the end it is our perception of that concensus and definition, and even then some fine detail may differ. Is there such a thing as collective subjectivity? Does a collective of agreed subjectivity make for objectivity?

Well...that answer would be subjective. Hehehe. I think collective objectivity exists. I don't think it means the collective is *right*, but that they there is an objectivity. Every person in the world would agree that a table is a table and a chair is a chair. I think that if someone was completely unfamiliar with the concept of "table and chair" and was presented with a table and chair, they would figure it out that is the best use for it. (Unless they are on a deserted island where using it as a shelter...or kindling...might be more appropriate.) I'm very hesitant to say there aren't exceptions to the rule. I don't think collective subjectivity makes for ultimate objectivity, but I would say a collective subjectivity is *more* objective than a singular subjectivity.

[Milorad]

I wonder... with the whole grass is green thing....

what is green? how do we know that what each of us see is the same thing (or even remotely similar)

if someone were to point to the colour blue, and say "green" you would develop the notion that this colour was called "green" ... from then on, you and the guy teaching you both know what "green" is to you.... it is just a label.

The sky has colour similarity to large bodies of water, which is similar in colour to this forum's hilights... but is it blue? I mean, its CALLED blue, but do we all see it in the same way?

There was a time when we couldnt know the answer to that... so we might think that it was subjective.... but now we can measure these things. Light frequency, refraction, the parts of the retina which are more sensitive to various frequency light, etc etc.

No we know that colour perception is not subjective but rather a function of our physical selves, right?

If so.... perhaps what is being discussed in this thread is only viewed as subjective because it cannot yet be measured.

[Fyshhed]

I wonder... with the whole grass is green thing....

what is green? how do we know that what each of us see is the same thing (or even remotely similar)

if someone were to point to the colour blue, and say "green" you would develop the notion that this colour was called "green" ... from then on, you and the guy teaching you both know what "green" is to you.... it is just a label.

The sky has colour similarity to large bodies of water, which is similar in colour to this forum's hilights... but is it blue? I mean, its CALLED blue, but do we all see it in the same way?

There was a time when we couldnt know the answer to that... so we might think that it was subjective.... but now we can measure these things. Light frequency, refraction, the parts of the retina which are more sensitive to various frequency light, etc etc.

No we know that colour perception is not subjective but rather a function of our physical selves, right?

If so.... perhaps what is being discussed in this thread is only viewed as subjective because it cannot yet be measured.


Good input, I had forgotten about light frequencies and wavelengths, (even though I did learn it in chemistry... whoops! :rolleyes: )

So we can prove that elements of reality are, in fact, real. Therefore, if a quality of A exists, A must exist. So we know reality is real, and some elements of perception thereof are common (sound, light, color...). I wonder if this argument actually can be answered definitively now :D

[Milorad]

I think the subjective/objective thing is clear. We can independently and scientifically measure things, therefore objectivity exists. I think that demonstrates that our experiences are shared rather than totally unique, even though it is shaped by additional information which is our current understanding, or perception.

That our shared experience is indeed 'real' though, brings up the whole matrix thing. What we share is objective, but only within the context of those of us sharing it.

I hope I'm being reasonably clear.... perhaps it relates to this thread, and perhaps not.

[FruitandNut]

I wonder... with the whole grass is green thing....

what is green? how do we know that what each of us see is the same thing (or even remotely similar)

if someone were to point to the colour blue, and say "green" you would develop the notion that this colour was called "green" ... from then on, you and the guy teaching you both know what "green" is to you.... it is just a label.


'What is in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet' - Willy Shakespeare.

[KneeLess]

What we share is objective, but only within the context of those of us sharing it.
Then would you say collective subjectivism is an oxymoron?

[FruitandNut]

Then would you say collective subjectivism is an oxymoron?


We would need a collective subjective consensus in order to give you an 'objective' opinion, KneeLess.

ps. As an oxymoron is the product of collective subjectivity, would an oxymoron also be an oxymoron? :evil:

Is it an oxymoron to think we can ever have true objectivity, if that is the case.

[Zhavric]

But what if that perception is right?

...

My point being, that at all times those animals were potentially dangerous, risk calculations were made, the animals also had some human conditioning that in certain circumstances rendered them less dangerous, and in other circumstances would make them more dangerous. If at any time one of those animals had felt threatened there would have been human and/ or animal casualties. While there was the potential for this to happen, it didn't.

I apologize if I did not make myself clear.

The example I gave wasn't...

Joe perceives rabid dog as a nice dog he can walk up to and pet.

... instead, what I was talking about was...

Joe (for whatever reason) percieves rabid dog as his old pal Frank who he went to high school with.

The point of the post that I made was that no matter how Joe perceives reality, reality is... well... reality. A rabid dog is a rabid dog... even if Joe PERCEIVES the dog as a flower or a tree or a stapler, the dog is still going to be a dog and bite Joe.

[Zhavric]

Consider this.

You and your buddy are walking to your car all alone in a parking lot after seeing a late-night movie. On the way to your car, you see an individual dressed EXACTLY like yourself walking from your car towards the movie theatre, but too far away for you to see the individual's face. You're too tired to run over to this person.

What are the first words out of your mouth?

*to your buddy* "Did you see that!?!"

When we are confronted with an extreme or unknown our first instinct is to challenge our own senses. "Am I really seeing that?!" An incident viewed by others is always more believable than an incident viewed by a single individual.

Take, for example, the Gahanna Lion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). For those of you not in the know, the city I live in, a suburb of Columbus, OH, had a wild African lion sighted earlier this summer.

What's the reality of it? Is there really a lion or did someone's senses fail them? i.e. Did they see something lion-like? Is it a hoax?

Point being, we begin to examine if the lion is real or not by how many people have seen it. We examine the legitimacy of each claim. Was it a group of fire-fighters or "old man Jenkins" who called in the UFO back in '89?

We perceive reality as a collective.

However, regardless of how we perceive it, there either is or is not a lion loose in central Ohio. I can disbelieve it all I want... if the lion attacks me, telling it "You're not real!" isn't going to save me from being lunch.

[Milorad]

Then would you say collective subjectivism is an oxymoron?


No, because of the second part of what I said...



What we share is objective, but only within the context of those of us sharing it.


That is collective subjectivism, but to my mind weighted slightly differently (to appeal to obvjectivists).

Those who argue objectivism might be satisfied that all of mankind is the 'collective' in question.... or maybe even something more broad than that.... however, since this is in the philosophical section, its important to note that whatever can be tested must be a collective of sorts.... and what of things outside that collective?

Which brings is back down to definitions and context.

Which context are we speaking in here? Mankind? Something wider than that?

I think that we can very reasonably say that reality is objective within the context of mankind's abilities (that is, extremely large-scale collective subjectivism).... but anything beyond that, and I can't know.

[FruitandNut]

Keeping roughly in the same thematic ball-park.

Is the word 'incomparable' an oxymoron in view of the fact that 'differention' and 'preference' are innate human traits, the definitions are a collective cosensus of subjective agreement, and in order to define anything as 'incomparable', a comparison must have been made?

[Milorad]

I don't think 'incomparable' is an oxymoron, at least not in its intended sense.

Language is imprecise and I think it is important to contextualise when using it, otherwise you get into all kinds of mess which allows intentional misunderstanding in order to 'score points' and that sort of thing.

I think we all know that 'incomparable' means that there is no direct basis upon which a comparison would yield anything useful. You can compare a red and a blue car to determine something of worth, but comparing an apple to a 747 is pretty pointless.

Also in a wider context, it means that something is vastly different to even the closest similar thing.

Of course a comparison must be made to determine if something is (or two things are) incomparable, only upon attempting can you possibly deduce failure.

[FruitandNut]

I don't think 'incomparable' is an oxymoron, at least not in its intended sense.

You can compare a red and a blue car to determine something of worth, but comparing an apple to a 747 is pretty pointless.

If I was hungry, or wanted to travel some distance quickly, I think I may find comparison useful.

[Milorad]

again with the sensitive nature of language.... context is important, as is an ability to think beyond the mathematical nature of comparison.

This discussion about things 'incomparable' is not a mathematical or strictly logical one. It is about what the word 'means' with all the richness and colour (read: poor definition) that language offers.

If language were as precise a tool as mathematics, then we wouldnt need mathematics.

Please don't get me wrong here... purely base-level logically the word 'incomparable' holds no value, yet in language it has a very rich meaning.

[chadn737]

I want to argue over where reality exists, inside the mind, or outside. My arguement for reality is that it is subjective, and the evidence is actually quite surprising. I use the word evidence very lightly here.

Ever hear of Schrodinger's Cat?