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

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Doc. I'll take you up on your reading recommendations. And your point number 3 is exactly what I was trying to communicate.

[honorentheos]

Thanks for the response Honor. I am very much enjoying this conversation. But I need to ask for a rain check. I'm taking a mental health break from the internet, news and politics. Usually, posting here helps me think through issues and helps reduce whatever anxiety I might be experiencing. But I think it's working backwards right now, and my brain is sending me signals that it needs some rest.

Stay well, stay safe, and I look forward to further discussion.

Be well, Res. Hopefully you get a few good game sessions in. I'm anticipating the next session I'm DMing will be unpredictable since the players ended it on a long rest with a handful of open leads to follow up on which could go a number of ways. All of which means I have been scrambling in my free time to gather or build maps and preparation NPCs of which most will not get used. The joys of being a DM. : )

[honorentheos]

#3 - Speaking of bumping into things you couldn't see. You'll note the book is resting on a stump. We literally moved that stump there Monday night. The stump, prior to Monday night, was never there. I am not used to the stump being there. This morning I got up, and meandered into the pictured space above, in the dark, not having any awareness whatsoever that the stump was there. Until I did. I cracked my toes on the stump. I get that my human construct-mind identifies that stump as a stump, however, due to me cracking my toes on the unremembered object, I'm forced to admit that the object exists independent of my toes. THE ONLY WAY AROUND THIS is we live in a simulation where nothing exists until its rendered based on programming used in this simulation. I see no other way.

- Doc

I am clearly not communicating well given I read your post, feel it aligns well enough with my view, yet perceived in it that there is a contention with my position. Why so? I'm guessing it has to do with the concept of object and existence. If said stump exists independent of anyone interacting with it, I don't see that as opposed to what I've been attempting to discuss here. But whether or not its existence matters in relation to Dr. Cam in a way that's purely objective? How can it? By definition the relationship is subjective.

So what about truth, then? Does truth exist in the way the stump as object may exist in the material universe? What definition of truth can be proposed that isn't relational? Is mere existence truth? Is saying the stump exists true? That's a bit mind bending to me as saying it is true that it exists requires one to explain how one justifies belief in the stump using non-subjective means. If our proof of it's existence is always the amount of human suffering a thing causes toes or wallets, it seems we are trying to overcome the struggle to express non-subjective existence of an object using subjective ways by asserting painful outcomes shouldn't be ignored. So the existence of the thing that caused pain cannot be ignored. If I then say the relationship or interactions that are painful means we are discussing "stump" rather than stump because interactions with pure object is impossible without interpretation through mind, well...

Again, existence is not truth.

Asserting there is a material universe is not sufficient to demonstrate truth is objective or something is objectively true. Existence doesn't inherently provide meaning. Justifying existence imposes meaning. The meaning? To demonstrate existence. We can assert something IS and demand this be accepted, but we are still only engaging through the subject means of examining it's existence. So the truth of this is not objective. It can't be.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think for me to truly (ha) understand what you’re saying I need to get on the same page, as much as I can. Help me out here. Define the following:

Subjectivity OR subjective, either word is fine.

Objective.

Truth.

For me they mean this:

Subjectivity - Reality as filtered through my human senses.

Objective - Reality independent of my human senses.

Truth - Rules that are inviolate.

Given the coffee table or stump as a point of focus let me then state:

Subjectivity - The stump (or coffee table) is such as defined by my human senses (and experiences).

Objective - The stump is an object that exists independent of my subjectivity. This was proven when I cracked my toes into it when I had exactly zero awareness of it. My subjectivity had no bearing on its object-ivity.

Truth - Something caused my self to stop in its tracks. My self was impeded by an object. This is true and unassailable.

Where am I going wrong with what you’re trying to get at? Because I’m losing the scent while attempting to track what you’re saying.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

I think for me to truly (ha) understand what you’re saying I need to get on the same page, as much as I can. Help me out here. Define the following:

Subjectivity OR subjective, either word is fine.

Objective.

Truth.

For me they mean this:

Subjectivity - Reality as filtered through my human senses.

Objective - Reality independent of my human senses.

Truth - Rules that are inviolate.

Given the coffee table or stump as a point of focus let me then state:

Subjectivity - The stump (or coffee table) is such as defined by my human senses (and experiences).

Objective - The stump is an object that exists independent of my subjectivity. This was proven when I cracked my toes into it when I had exactly zero awareness of it. My subjectivity had no bearing on its object-ivity.

Truth - Something caused my self to stop in its tracks. My self was impeded by an object. This is true and unassailable.

Where am I going wrong with what you’re trying to get at? Because I’m losing the scent while attempting to track what you’re saying.

- Doc

I guess I'd work with your definitions as a place to start so we aren't trying to do too many things at once. I want to focus on these two statements:

Subjectivity - The stump (or coffee table) is such as defined by my human senses (and experiences).

Objective - The stump is an object that exists independent of my subjectivity. This was proven when I cracked my toes into it when I had exactly zero awareness of it. My subjectivity had no bearing on its object-ivity.

The stump is an object that exists independent of your or my subjectivity? Check. No problem. That's a reasonable expression of objective existence.

Then you say that this was proven when you cracked your toes into it when you had exactly zero awareness of it. Hmmm. You say here, "My subjectivity had no bearing on its object-ivity." Yet you also defined subjectivity as being defined by your senses.

Your human senses are the only thing that defines your interaction with the stump.

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?

It seems your senses made you aware of "something". And those senses then aggregated your experience with interacting with this something. And through those senses your awareness assigned definition, attributes, and all of the qualities that now signify stump to you. So the truth of the stump's existence is subjectively understood by you, as a necessary bridge between the objective existence of whatever they signify (stump) and you. You, Dr, Cam, are only aware of stump through "stump".

Then if you recall what you define as the truth discovered here - that you were stopped by some "thing" that you now know as "stump", this truth is purely subjective. I argue its more proper to limit what you understand here through experiencing the stump's existence to only what you can claim through your subjective experience. The truth here isn't so definitive as to tell us about the objective nature of the stump. Instead its proposed one ought to expect certain subjective experiences if one engages ones senses in certain ways in certain places. The object that is stump influences your subjective experience. But what you have is a subjective experience, and nothing else.

[honorentheos]

Again, I am asserting that truth as we have access to it is defined through subjective experiences. Justifying our claims about reality (truth) requires evidence that we both gather from our own experience and refine through aggregation with other's experiences. The scientific method is a process that codifies how to do this and helps us overcome bias. But it doesn't leap over subjective experience to objective existence. It just molds the clay of subjective experience to more closely approximate the object. We do this through subjecting our subjective placeholder to experiment in order to strip off the bits that don't match and reattach clay to the bits where our representation seems to be lacking compared to what the experience tells us is going on. All of this helps us to understanding the objective "object" that is the cause of our subjective understanding of the object.

But at no point do we magically gain access to the object. Our subjective placeholder just gets more accurate. Well, we hope. ; )

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Could I not also be aware of something because my self was impeded by an object irrespective of my human senses? In other words, I become aware of an objective truth that my self was simply impeded by an object?

Another example using gravity since I brought that up earlier:

When two in-kind metallic objects in space bump into each other they fuse instantly. The two objects display no subjectivity that we could understand. They appear to be objective in the most literal way possible. And yet the objective truth of these two objects is they’re now fused together. In the same way that I was impeded by an object these two objects were fused together by an objective process. Whether or not we witness the moment they fuse together or the moment my self was impeded by the object is irrelevant to the truth of the rules that govern these interactions. They happen, and it’s only post-hoc that we subjectively evaluate what happened.

Are you suggesting that this can’t happen unless it’s observed? Again, I’m a little lost as to the specific thing you’re getting at. I’ll need an example or analogy or something to understand your stance. I’m not trying to be adversarial - I’m obviously interested in understanding what the “F” reality is, so I’m hoping to see ‘truth’ through your mind.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

Could I not also be aware of something because my self was impeded by an object irrespective of my human senses? In other words, I become aware of an objective truth that my self was simply impeded by an object?

Another example using gravity since I brought that up earlier:

When two in-kind metallic objects in space bump into each other they fuse instantly. The two objects display no subjectivity that we could understand. They appear to be objective in the most literal way possible. And yet the objective truth of these two objects is they’re now fused together. In the same way that I was impeded by an object these two objects were fused together by an objective process. Whether or not we witness the moment they fuse together or the moment my self was impeded by the object is irrelevant to the truth of the rules that govern these interactions. They happen, and it’s only post-hoc that we subjectively evaluate what happened.

Are you suggesting that this can’t happen unless it’s observed? Again, I’m a little lost as to the specific thing you’re getting at. I’ll need an example or analogy or something to understand your stance. I’m not trying to be adversarial - I’m obviously interested in understanding what the “F” reality is, so I’m hoping to see ‘truth’ through your mind.

- Doc

I'm not suggesting that observers are required for things to happen or exist. I am focusing on what it means for human beings to describe the universe as we experience it in ways that we feel are reliable. For example, when you talk about objects displaying properties or appearing certain ways, you're using the language of subjectivity to do so. These things "appear" to have certain properties. When we examine them we find they have certain qualities that we assign to have meaning and form or refine our understanding. Those qualities are subjectively defined. We do experiments and find that certain attempts to do certain things result in predictable outcomes. And they seem to be governed by something that underlies all of these subjective attempts to understand and define them.

But at no point are we overcoming completely the fact (maybe this is my "objective" truth? Ha) that what we have are all still experiences and sense data.

Perhaps it's worth revisiting why I brought this up in the first place. That was to suggest the following from the OP:

I think part of what feels like society pulling at its own threads right now is due to our focusing a lot on where we disagree on what it true or good, all while assuming that everyone knows why something is true, or why it’s good so those who act differently must be either bad or lovers of lies. It isn’t a reflection of one side of the political divide in America. All sides engage in this, viewing their paradigm as accurate hence those who disagree must be flawed.

This is already too long. But what I am getting at is this: we’re obligated to acknowledge our inabilities to known what it true, what is good, what is beautiful in an objective way and at the same time be cooperative in a social order where not everyone is willing or able to do so. That’s tricky. All the more so because the person making bold claims of absolute knowledge is appealing.

[honorentheos]

I guess I do need to take issue with a definition. That being the one you proposed for truth in order to discuss this.

You described truth as rules that are inviolate.

How do we go about determining this? I assume we do so through experience. If I attempt to walk on water and am not able to remain on the surface, I would be justified in believing that every time I attempt to do so will fail and I'll sink. Is it true? Well, it's justified in so far as I experience sinking when I attempt it and observe this occurs to other people.

But is it a rule that is inviolate? How many experiments does one conduct to conclusively demonstrate that there is a rule that is inviolate involving what happens when I attempt to walk on water? I don't know but to be inviolate would suggest a crap-ton of experimentation. Maybe even infinite experimentation before one can call it inviolate. I think we tend to settle for something far less than that. We accept true enough for true if that is our definition for truth. And that's not only acceptable and rational. To do otherwise would prevent us from functioning.

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?

[canpakes]

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.