Is anything objective?

[Time Commander Bob]

Since everything that is perceived is ultimately perceived and interacted with through a human interface (which by itself is a constraint) can we know of anything that is entirely objective as in independent of the human mind? If it is impossible to imagine something when outside of human experience, does it not then logically follow that we cannot know what things truly are or that such a concept exists at all?

For example, if I see a pencil, what is created in the mind is a mental image of the pencil formed by sensory stimulus rather than what the pencil actually is.

[Helm]

It depends on whether you believe in an omnipresent God or not.

[Tankbuster]

Yes, all of that logically follows: nothing is entirely 100% objective. Any piece of knowledge and any action depends on a set (albeit often a small set) of assumptions.

For example:
- you have to assume that you're not in a kind of "matrix" where you're just a brain in a jar to whom information is being fed
- you have to assume that you're not having a sudden case of totally unexpected hallucination
- you have to assume that your senses are a little bit reliable
- etcetera etcetera

Now of course, these assumptions are all pretty small. Nobody seriously thinks assuming that we don't live in a kind of matrix is a big assumption. But nevertheless, it renders true 100% objectivity impossible: you're always making some assumption. Ergo, true objectivity of anything outside of the human mind (hell, even inside of the human mind) is impossible.

Now, that's not to say that some ways of investigating reality are not more 'objective' and more rational than others.

[Ludicus]

Since everything that is perceived is ultimately perceived and interacted with through a human interface (which by itself is a constraint) can we know of anything that is entirely objective as in independent of the human mind?

According to Politzer, "philosophers who think that matter is a perception also run away when they see a bus and this is the proof of the physical existence of matter"

According to Engels,"if the cakes we eat were mere perceptions, they would not stop our hunger"...

[Simon Cashmere]

The laws of physics, say, atomic physics, are largely not open to interpretation.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Can we pass off: "the state of being an entity that experiences subjectively", as an objective truth?

If so, we can compile a short list of absolute knowledge:

- I exist (: I am an entity which state of being is an actuality)
- I am conscious of my existence ( : the result of affirming the state of being as an actuality)
- I am aware of the self ( : a logical consequence of having recognized the actuality of my state of being; my existence as a consciousness)
- I perceive ( : my consciousness is not static as demonstrated by the process above)
- I receive (sense) data ( : the base of my perceptions)

There it ends, I cannot know if the (sense) data is emitted by a source or if that is all there is.

According to Politzer, "philosophers who think that matter is a perception also run away when they see a bus and this is the proof of the physical existence of matter"

According to Engels,"if the cakes we eat were mere perceptions, they would not stop our hunger"...

Caricatures, both of them.

Perceiving is a process of the mind. It does not follow that the perceived is therefore imaginary.

The laws of physics, say, atomic physics, are largely not open to interpretation.

Those are intellectual structures by themselves and the actuality they describe is open to interpretation, very much so.
(I dare you to stop interpreting reality )

[Time Commander Bob]

It depends on whether you believe in an omnipresent God or not.

Even if one could perceive the existence of such a being, how would it change anything? Everything perceived would still be subjective and the omnipresent deity would be one of those entities that is observed or reasoned through the human interface.

According to Politzer, "philosophers who think that matter is a perception also run away when they see a bus and this is the proof of the physical existence of matter"

According to Engels,"if the cakes we eat were mere perceptions, they would not stop our hunger"...

I am not proposing that everything is imaginary though, only that nothing can be known to be objective.

The laws of physics, say, atomic physics, are largely not open to interpretation.

On the contrary, I would say the laws of physics are how we have interpret the universe using a logical system that we have invented to explain events that we experience through sensory (and therefore subjective) means.

[Bovril]

Why do things that exist objectively have to be knowable? That seems to me a very strange epistemology.

'Objective' refers to the gramatical construction, even in the most complex philosophy, though this meaning can be warped. The object is the thing upon which the subject acts. This object presents the subject with their relationship with that which is outside themselves. Objectivity is built into human experience. Memory presuposes objectivity. Our experience of that which we remember is second order experience, and presuposes first order experience (even in implanted memories). This relationship is a subject-object relationship which necessarily posits the objective external experience of something, the experience remembered, even if the rembered experience was entirely halucinatory.

Of course, we must add that objective reality is not directly accesible by us. In fact the assertion of a relationship between the subject and object is equally an expression of the ground of transcendence. None the less, common experince seems to point towards boundries for the nature of objective reality which position it somewhere within the field of knowing. The Matrix, a solopsistic fantasy if ever there was one, misses these points completely.

[Time Commander Bob]

Why do things that exist objectively have to be knowable? That seems to me a very strange epistemology.

'Objective' refers to the gramatical construction, even in the most complex philosophy, though this meaning can be warped. The object is the thing upon which the subject acts. This object presents the subject with their relationship with that which is outside themselves. Objectivity is built into human experience. Memory presuposes objectivity. Our experience of that which we remember is second order experience, and presuposes first order experience (even in implanted memories). This relationship is a subject-object relationship which necessarily posits the objective external experience of something, the experience remembered, even if the rembered experience was entirely halucinatory.

Of course, we must add that objective reality is not directly accesible by us. In fact the assertion of a relationship between the subject and object is equally an expression of the ground of transcendence. None the less, common experince seems to point towards boundries for the nature of objective reality which position it somewhere within the field of knowing. The Matrix, a solopsistic fantasy if ever there was one, misses these points completely.

I'm not stating that objective entities have to be knowable, just that we can't know of any objective entities. For example, I could not know if the world exists if I did not exist, because the only way to verify this would be to no longer exist which would cease all capacity to know. This is what I mean by objectivity, that which is separate from the conscious mind. Though we may perceive things to be objective through experience, perception is ultimately a subjective act.

[Bovril]

I'm not stating that objective entities have to be knowable, just that we can't know of any objective entities.

I would argue that we do know of objective things; indeed, we know of them to an extent that strikes us as obscene (in the philosophical sense). The fact that we do not represent in our minds some perfect version of objects is both true and trivial. We can still asert the reality of objectivity in general and the reality of the relationship between the subject and the object in specifics. The nature of the object is never asserted, and the act of being is always that of the subject. So, in a sense, it's a question of perspective.

For example, I could not know if the world exists if I did not exist, because the only way to verify this would be to no longer exist which would cease all capacity to know. This is what I mean by objectivity, that which is separate from the conscious mind. Though we may perceive things to be objective through experience, perception is ultimately a subjective act.

Your relationship with reality is surely more complex, or at least of a different texture, to this crude experimental epistemology. The example you giv uses a solopsistic premise, and is accopanied by all the problems of solopsism.

[Simon Cashmere]

Those are intellectual structures by themselves and the actuality they describe is open to interpretation, very much so.
(I dare you to stop interpreting reality

The equations necessary to bring about an atomic explosion, are not a matter of subjective interpretation. They cannot be true for you and not true for me. They just are.

[removeduser_487563287433]

For example, if I see a pencil, what is created in the mind is a mental image of the pencil formed by sensory stimulus rather than what the pencil actually is.

Correct. The pencil will be different to different people who sense it. One person may describe it as orange, another red.

To get really complicated, the length of the pencil. 15cm? Depends on how you measure it. It could be infinite, if you go to a molecular level and measure every tiny bump in the pencil's structure.

[Time Commander Bob]

Your relationship with reality is surely more complex, or at least of a different texture, to this crude experimental epistemology. The example you giv uses a solopsistic premise, and is accopanied by all the problems of solopsism.

Okay, perhaps if I define what I am treating knowledge as it will clarify my position:
->Knowledge is what can be stated by justified certainty.
->Justification requires a being that is capable of it.
->Such capacities will be subjective to that justifying being. For example, humans can reason better than other animals and have different sensory capacities.
->Furthermore such statements will also be subjective to the justifying being as they will be expressed with language and defines created by such a being.
->It follows therefore that one cannot be certain of a completely objective being or its characteristics through these purely subjective processes.

However, empirical observations are by no means meaningless even if they cannot be known. If many people observe something and communicate it in a similar way, then the language in which the observation is made does have meaning as it conveys an idea that can be understood by others. The mental image in people's minds is still useful despite being unable to know if its true existence (or even if it has existence beyond one's perception of it).