Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 6:26 pm
I agree. Nonetheless, we each are subject to the limitations of being “closed in” inasfar as we create and in a certain sense imagine our own reality. Whether or not we change our biases and perceptions are a product of multifaceted workings within the closed system of our own minds. To think that the ‘other’ is in some respects ‘malleable clay’ that can be influenced to fall in line with a certain set of beliefs, biases, prejudices, etc., is of course a ‘thing’. We have seen this to be the case throughout history and even in our own time.
Some people are more malleable than others because they seem to be predisposed to letting their minds travel the path of least resistance. We’re all prone to that. But after all is said and done we are responsible for our own decisions even as we receive constant input and influences from the outside world…which is anything outside our own head. So even though we might be highly malleable we are still subject to the fact that we create our own reality. Whatever objective reality is, it is outside this closed system. And it cannot be fully known.
That’s why I am prone to think that objective reality cannot be known to a finite and limited close system such as a human. And objective truth would need to be introduced from outside the system.
I’ve talked about that at length previously.
I’m very wary of taking at face value the perceived reality(beliefs, biases, prejudices, and what have you) of another person. I know for a fact and by definition that their reality and imagination is limited in the same way that mine is.
Although, I should've course have respect and even a certain degree of empathy for where they are coming from especially if I can see that they hurting for one reason or another.
I’ve talked at length recently about the fact that unless we accept the ‘other’ as who they are we are going to continue to travel the road of polarization and defeat. We all become losers if we are not able to ‘see’ the other with grace. That’s all we can do when it is a given fact we are limited by our very nature to readily grasp objective truth in all of its glory, so to speak.
I call that objective source of truth God.
Regards,
MG
I think maybe your use of "closed system" is more confusing than illuminating.
In my mind…pun intended…I can’t see that it can be any other way. If I didn’t exist objective reality would not cease to exist. There would be no explanation/meaning for it because there would be no observer (me) to question its meaning or ask “why?”. Only because I exist can I ask the question why, and look for answers. But to say all answers are subjective and not objective simply because I am in a closed biological system seems unreasonable knowing that if I cease to exist everything else goes on existing with absolutely no recognition of me as a person or my questions. Objective reality just is. And as an observer I can ask questions but I am incapable of knowing the answers except for what my brain interprets as being reality. Some…a lot… being subjective and MAYBE some objective thrown in.
My argument is that if there is objective truth it would have to be introduced into the system from the outside. It would be more or less a “special instance”.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
If the system is the human brain, then all information comes from outside the system. My brain takes all kinds of information that it receives from you, Morely, Dan Peterson, Jordan Peterson, the American Academy of Science, youtube, Fox News, and on and on and on. From that information, it constructs a reality.
Yes. Your reality.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
But there is no good way for me to tell which of these sources most resembles objective reality.
Exactly.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
So, if I aspire to be "reality based," I try to construct my reality in a way that resembles objective reality.
We can give it our best shot.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
But there is reliable method of knowing how close I really am.
That “reliable method”, however, is a construct.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
Even if one of the millions of sources of information that flow from outside our brains into our brains was 100% objectively true, there is no way that we could recognize it.
I would agree that recognizing it would be something to be determined at an individual level. But to say that it is not something that be can be recognized as objective truth…either/or…is looking at it from a zero sum perspective. It is in the eye of the observer.
There are many truths that religionists consider to be objective albeit from a position of faith. The only way one would be able to discern ACTUAL objective truth would be from ACTUAL revealed truth from outside the system. That is problematic in the sense that humans are prone to ‘making stuff up’ because it subjectively ‘floats your boat’ as it fits with personal expectations and the needs for this or that.
So for the outside observer, which is all of us, it’s a Catch-22. We can only determine what the truth is for our own closed system of recognition and perception.
If I believe the CofJCofLDS to be the conduit of information from outside the closed system I can only determine that for myself knowing that others ‘in the room’ are going to have differing perceptions (for a whole host of reasons) and are not going to see things the same way I do. If we all give each other grace in these matters it really would alleviate most of the unhelpful and unhealthy confrontations. This knowledge (for me) has come through (for me) over a long period of time. It’s my truth but not necessarily someone else’s.
In our age of constant information and readily accessible anonymity the path of least resistance is to fall short and fail to realize that everyone in the room and ‘at the party’ is going to have differences of opinion in regards to objective and subjective truths.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
We don't have access to objective truth, so we have no yardstick against which to measure different sources of information.
That’s true only when we believe there is no yardstick.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
As soon you claim the existence of a source of objective truth or reality that you can recognize as such, you've just contradicted everything you've said before.
I don’t believe so.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
You are attempting to avoid that contradiction through what's called special pleading. Something like, but information from God is different because 1) God is objective; and 2) we have reliable access to information from God.
Admittedly, yes.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
Why are these things true? Because you thought up an entity and defined it to be an exception.
That becomes an “if” statement. Either/or. If there isn’t an entity outside of human consciousness then OF COURSE it’s a “thought up” entity. YOUR presupposition is that it is thought up. The thing is, if there is an objective truth/entity outside of our human view that entity is NOT thought up and actually exists and can give input into the closed system.
That’s where individual searching, reasoning, and efforts to reach out beyond the closed system come into play. The problem is, as we all know, is that subjectivity comes into play. We can only be responsive for our own ‘truth’.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
When you think you are receiving information from God that you can recognize as objective truth, how do you know that?
The same way we learn many if not most things. Trial and error. But it’s an individual path for each person on the planet. I don’t think it can be directly implanted or shared with anyone else, again because of solipsistic factors that enter in.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
As soon as you claim privileged access as a God believer to objective truth, you claim a superior status in terms of access to objective reality.
I suppose in a certain sense that is true. But it doesn’t need to get in the way of showing grace and understanding that we are all in the room and are perceiving things differently.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
That completely undercuts you're concept of "I'm okay, you're okay" and replaces it with "I'm okay, you're okay, but not really."
I honestly don’t think it needs to. It’s in the eyes of the observer.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 9:53 pm
And that comes through loud and clear when you qualify all of the relativistic stuff in your post with "I call that objective source of truth God."
That’s my truth. Not yours. We ought to be free to express our truth without any kind of condemnation. I’m perfectly open to the qualifications/logical explanations…or testimony… of ‘your truth’ as I listen to you, knowing that it’s your truth.
There is no reason that I can see for all of the bickering that goes on her and in other places that can’t be solved by listening/understanding/acceptance.
As I said before, I think we are genetically/tribally predisposition towards fear and protection of our own turf even if it results in warfare and hurt.
I’ve fallen prey to that tendency.
Sorry. Long post. But I thought you brought up some good points that were relevant to the conversation and deserved response.
Regards,
MG