The View from 40,000 FT and the Tip of Ones Nose

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So I'd ask that we modify what we call truth to reflect what we actual do. Truth is the justified expectation of a given result. By accepting this, we recognize that new information can cause us to modify our expectation and thus truth, whatever it is, isn't objective. That's a categorical error, in my opinion, because how does one justify something without relying on subjective experience to do so?

When someone says, “Tell me the truth.”, aren’t we saying, “State what is?” I think when we discuss subjectivity, in relation to philosophy, we’re basically discussing the metaphysical at this point. We’re at a place where we’re left with no choice (ha) but to accept what is, and what is when it comes to our subjectivity is that we’re left to constantly relay to one another subjective evaluations of our perception of objects. The only way to move forward is to accept a decreasing statistical probablity that something isn’t when it does what it does over and over again. That’s called Law. And that’s why I keep going back back to the example of gravity in context of objective truth.

Gravity is inviolate. You have your infinite number of examples right there. Gravity is objectively true.

What does subjectivity have to do with that? Absolutely nothing. It has literally zero to do with the objective truth of the Law of Gravity.

And it’s from there we begin to scaffold other truths, objective truths. My question for you is, “Where does Honor go from there?”

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So how do you reconcile that the object's existence is proven through subjective engagement through your senses and still argue that subjectivity had no bearing on proving its objective existence?

Honor, got a question. Perhaps the existence and proximity are both in play. If Doc slams his toe on the stump, he subjectively confirms the stump’s existence courtesy of its proximity to his toe. Otherwise, without contact, his subjective senses do not necessarily confirm the object’s existence. Similarly, the object can exist without confirmation from Doc’s toe making contact.

The object (stump) is subjectively proven to exist in this case, but cannot be subjectively proven to exist in all cases, without an added factor, which here is ‘proximity’ ..?

This whole conversation flies far above my reptilian walnut brain, so I’ll apologize in advance if I’m missing something super-obvious.

ETA: it looks like Doc is also asking the same thing. I’ll pipe down and will keep reading, lol.

I’d suggest the stump is objectively true, and only in the post hoc moments after my self is impeded do I subjectively come to the conclusion an object of some sort impeded my momentum. What is is something was at a more or less fixed point which existed outside of my perception, and only manifested in my consciousness after I subjectively assessed it. Had the object not existed my momentum would’ve been uninterrupted, which I also assert is objectively true, outside of my own subjectivity.

Long story short, things exist outside of the self, they have inviolate rules, and you didn’t actually choose to drink that coffee this morning.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

Hey Doc,

When someone says, “Tell me the truth.”, aren’t we saying, “State what is?” I think when we discuss subjectivity, in relation to philosophy, we’re basically discussing the metaphysical at this point. We’re at a place where we’re left with no choice (ha) but to accept what is, and what is when it comes to our subjectivity is that we’re left to constantly relay to one another subjective evaluations of our perception of objects. The only way to move forward is to accept a decreasing statistical probablity that something isn’t when it does what it does over and over again.

I agree with this. I thought it was what I've been arguing, actually. Just add that you can never eventually part the veil to arrive at the object behind our experiences and sense interpretation and we're on the same page.

That’s called Law.

Hmmm. I don't agree with this. I think this falls back on the point Res brought up about language and meaning, which is where this probably inevitably ends up but even then, we just inserted another term when we were having issues with truth still.

And that’s why I keep going back back to the example of gravity in context of objective truth.

Gravity is inviolate. You have your infinite number of examples right there. Gravity is objectively true.

Ok. Let's go with this for a moment. Let's say gravity is objectively true. So, point it out to me. When you say this, do you mean there is this thing called gravity that you could take me to if we went on a hike? We could take selfies in front of it? You could sketch it for me if needed? When you say it's objectively true, and you mean by that, Gravity IS! that leads to the question it is...what?

What does subjectivity have to do with that? Absolutely nothing. It has literally zero to do with the objective truth of the Law of Gravity.

And it’s from there we begin to scaffold other truths, objective truths.

Sure. So the first scaffold is, "Gravity is ___________."

My question for you is, “Where does Honor go from there?”

Maybe to get a selfie with gravity?

To be clear, I'm not denying anything about gravity per se. I'm arguing that this example for illustrating there is objective truth available to human beings is flawed...maybe. But we'll see.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. Gravity is just a rule. When we describe this thing, subjectively after we experience it, it doesn’t change the rule by which objects in this reality must abide.

Also, you can take a picture of this rule:

https://www.space.com/gravity-waves-atmosphere.html

So. Again. Where does Honor go with this? I see that you’re mindful of our mutual subjective realities, but I can’t see you ethically promote the idea there aren’t objective, inviolate truths in this universe.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

Well. Gravity is just a rule. When we describe this thing, subjectively after we experience it, it doesn’t change the rule by which objects in this reality must abide.

Also, you can take a picture of this rule:

https://www.space.com/gravity-waves-atmosphere.html

So. Again. Where does Honor go with this? I see that you’re mindful of our mutual subjective realities, but I can’t see you ethically promote the idea there aren’t objective, inviolate truths in this universe.

- Doc

Let's take a moment and break this down to what gravity "is". Could you provide one, simple statement of the rule? An equation? Could you promise that this equation predicts results with absolute perfect certainty? We picked it as something inviolate after all.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sure. Gravity is the attractive force between two objects with a non-zero mass.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

Sure. Gravity is the attractive force between two objects with a non-zero mass.

- Doc

That's not a rule. Or not the form for a rule I recognize anyway.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sure. Gravity is the attractive force between two objects with a non-zero mass.

- Doc

That's not a rule. Or not the form for a rule I recognize anyway.

Lol. Ok.

If you’re still interested, could you take your philosophical stance and create a practical example that an Everyman might understand and use?

- Doc

[honorentheos]

To jump a head a bit and save time, this force we call gravity doesn't have a single equation that perfectly captures all that is meant by it. It doesn't operate at the quantum level. The concept as you described it might pop up in the conversation with a kid like:

Dad what makes it so I fall instead of fly off when I jump off things?

Gravity, dear.

What's that?

It's what we call the attractive force between two objects with nonzero mass.

???

The earth pulls on you all the time. So when you try to jump away it pulls you back. Like invisible rubber bands.

Oh, so how do airplanes fly?

Well, when air moves over a surface that is curved on top and flat on the bottom, see...

The reality is the deeper you dive into it the more you would realize it's not a tidy thing that science has wrapped up and set aside. But for most of us, the truth of how we experience gravity is good enough. I'd say it's much closer to this:

Truth is the justified expectation of a given result. By accepting this, we recognize that new information can cause us to modify our expectation.

And not an inviolate rule whatever one means by that.

We have a lot of tools to use to make predictive use of those truths. But they aren't inviolate and adamantine solid descriptions of the "laws" of the universe. We call it a law because it's that damn close to being understood pretty well and is more than good enough for what most of us need out of it for sure. But that's part of the subjectivity issue. This guy is doing things that sit outside of the definition you provided for example:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/so ... gravity-2/

[Some Schmo]

I usually find discussions like this suffer from the participants' inability to adequately articulate their thoughts in a way that others are going to receive accurately. To me, that's the real problem you're talking about. It's not really about whether we can personally determine what is objectively real; we certainly can if we choose, if we do the rigorous work it takes. The problem is the inability to articulate reality in a way that is universally acceptable and received, because language is fluid and somewhat unreliable. Words mean different nuanced things to different people.

The other thing that strikes me about this conversation is the use of the word "subjectivity." Its use feels a bit binary, like an idea is either subjective, or not subjective. Isn't subjectivity on a continuum? Aren't some feelings and ideas more subjective than others, because they rely on less data? We can certainly be more assured of some objective realities than others, based on the compilation of evidence for any given idea.

I am sympathetic with the implications of the fact that our entire existence is experienced in our heads. I am convinced, however, by the consistency of my external world. I am convinced by consistency.