YOU DO NOT SEE OBJECTIVE REALITY OBJECTIVELY

Kooky said:

How about this: In order to observe, we need an observer (subject) and an observed (object). Therefore, objective observation is a contradiction in terms, because it would require an observation without an observer.

Click to expand...

The/our brain is the observer prior to us being consciously aware of the observation.
Consciously, what we observe is not reality. It is a prediction of what reality is structured in a format that is easily understood by our conscious awareness so we can, usually, effectively interact with this reality.

Or how about this: Our sensory organs are only capable of receiving very specific types of data, and no others.
Therefore, all sensory data we receive is already filtered through the capabilities and ideosyncracies of our sensory organs.

Click to expand...

objective here is the definition of objective I believe applies - b: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
Do you believe that our sense perception is not derived from actual physical objects?

Or how about this: The fact that we perceive reality in a structured, patterned way that makes intuitive sense to us suggests two possible states - either reality is already structured and patterned so that we can make sense of it, or our minds pre-structure and pre-pattern all our impressions of reality so as to make intuitive sense of it; in either case, our perceptions of reality are being structured in exactly such a way as to conform to our subjective understanding of it.

Click to expand...

Yes, our brain uses a subconscious process to predict a reality and present it to our conscious awareness that has developed since we were first born. This does not mean our brain does not receive objective sensory in formation. Only that if it does, we are not directly aware of it. Because of this we have learn how to trick the brain into seeing reality as something it is not through optical illusion as was previously presented. This doesn't mean the non-conscious part of our brain was fooled by the objective sensory date we received.

Nakosis said:

The/our brain is the observer prior to us being consciously aware of the observation.
Consciously, what we observe is not reality. It is a prediction of what reality is structured in a format that is easily understood by our conscious awareness so we can, usually, effectively interact with this reality.

Click to expand...

Do you have any kind of evidence that this prior observation actually happens, or it is simply a presumption to allow for a subjectless, pre-conscious, more perfect form of observation? Also, why do you presume that subjects only exist consciously?

objective here is the definition of objective I believe applies - b: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
Do you believe that our sense perception is not derived from actual physical objects?

Click to expand...

I believe that the strictly linear stimulus-response model you are basing your reasoning on is not an accurate reflection of what's going on when we perceive things. I also believe our perception is known to be limited, inaccurate, and strongly influenced by subjective expectations.

Yes, our brain uses a subconscious process to predict a reality and present it to our conscious awareness that has developed since we were first born. This does not mean our brain does not receive objective sensory in formation.

Click to expand...

All information is being gathered by an observing subject via that subject's sensory organs and that subject's brain, so I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "objective" sensory information.

Only that if it does, we are not directly aware of it. Because of this we have learn how to trick the brain into seeing reality as something it is not through optical illusion as was previously presented. This doesn't mean the non-conscious part of our brain was fooled by the objective sensory date we received.

Click to expand...

See my response to the very first portion of your post. Where did you get your evidence for an apparently infallible (or at least untrickable) nonconscious perceptory apparatus?

Nakosis said:

Do you have anything to support that statement?

Click to expand...

The same evidence that shows humans don't see, hear, etc. things objectively such as the illusion posted above. Our mind is constructing what we perceive rather than simply objectively displaying it.

In what way do you think they are being more 'objective' rather than simply using their subjective capabilities more effectively?

Nakosis said:

Consciously, what we observe is not reality. It is a prediction of what reality is structured in a format that is easily understood by our conscious awareness so we can, usually, effectively interact with this reality.

Click to expand...

That is also true of the subconscious.

Augustus said:

The same evidence that shows humans don't see, hear, etc. things objectively such as the illusion posted above. Our mind is constructing what we perceive rather than simply objectively displaying it.

In what way do you think they are being more 'objective' rather than simply using their subjective capabilities more effectively?

Click to expand...

Because information is information. Do you believe there is a fault in our sensory mechanisms?

That is also true of the subconscious.

Click to expand...

Not what I've read so far but I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments.

Nakosis said:

Because information is information. Do you believe there is a fault in our sensory mechanisms?

Click to expand...

They are imperfect certainly, but this is not necessarily a 'fault'.

There is a balance between useful enough while requiring less energy and brain power and perfection requiring more energy and brain power.

The more information processed the more processing power required.


The athlete in the zone is relying on such subjective predictions, they are just more skilled at this than the average person.




"Reality" is constructed by your brain. Here’s what that means, and why it matters.

Nakosis said:

Not what I've read so far but I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments.

Click to expand...

Look back at the checkerboard illusion, are you saying you are making a conscious judgement to wrongly see the 2 squares as being different colours?

Of course not, it's caused by multiple subconscious processes.

What evidence have you seen that the subconscious is "objective"?

Kooky said:

Do you have any kind of evidence that this prior observation actually happens, or it is simply a presumption to allow for a subjectless, pre-conscious, more perfect form of observation? Also, why do you presume that subjects only exist consciously?


I believe that the strictly linear stimulus-response model you are basing your reasoning on is not an accurate reflection of what's going on when we perceive things. I also believe our perception is known to be limited, inaccurate, and strongly influenced by subjective expectations.



All information is being gathered by an observing subject via that subject's sensory organs and that subject's brain, so I don't understand what you mean when you talk about "objective" sensory information.


See my response to the very first portion of your post. Where did you get your evidence for an apparently infallible (or at least untrickable) nonconscious perceptory apparatus?

Click to expand...

Still being researched, and the results and not conclusive. here is a sample.

Unconscious categorization of sub-millisecond complex images

However most of my belief comes in the form of personal experience. Playing ping-pong.

I played for many hours against many opponents of different skill levels. Of course everything initially was slow, objective, conscious responses. Then one day I was playing against an Iranian opponent, who I've face many times before and always beat me with vicious slams. I returned it, high, slow which he slammed again. Again I returned it. This happen twice more. He was so impressed that he stopped playing and started smiling. I had transitioned from responding consciously to responding subconsciously.

Eventually I found I didn't have to focus on the game at all. I could daydream, I could watch as a detached observer. I was surprised to find, while watching detachedly, that my body physical knew where the ball was going before my opponent even hit it. My body would start to move to the position the ball was going to be before they hit it.

IMO, to be able to play at this level, my subconscious mind has no time for subjective analysis. It would need to take in 100s of different data points and react almost immediately to them. To react correctly, all the information has to be accurate and unbiased. Otherwise I would obviously be unable to return the ball as I did.

This is why I lean this direction in what I believe. Research is still ongoing. It is very hard to come up with ways to test scientifically the accuracy of subconscious response. However personally I've found that conscious response lacks the accuracy that subconscious response. While I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person to have experience this, I can only really know what I have experienced for myself.

Nakosis said:

IMO, to be able to play at this level, my subconscious mind has no time for subjective analysis. It would need to take in 100s of different data points and react almost immediately to them. To react correctly, all the information has to be accurate and unbiased. Otherwise I would obviously be unable to return the ball as I did.

This is why I lean this direction in what I believe. Research is still ongoing. It is very hard to come up with ways to test scientifically the accuracy of subconscious response. However personally I've found that conscious response lacks the accuracy that subconscious response. While I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person to have experience this, I can only really know what I have experienced for myself.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is simply a case of particularly effective subjective analysis:

“The dirty little secret about sensory systems is that they’re slow, they’re lagged, they’re not about what’s happening right now but what’s happening 50 milliseconds ago, or, in the case for vision, hundreds of milliseconds ago,” says Adam Hantman, a neuroscientist at Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Research Campus.

If we relied solely on this outdated information, though, we wouldn’t be able to hit baseballs with bats, or swat annoying flies away from our faces. We’d be less coordinated, and possibly get hurt more often.

So the brain predicts the path of motion before it happens. It tells us a story about where the object is heading, and this story becomes our reality.


It is based on repetition and experience leading to a subjective expectation based on numerous factors that operate at the subconscious level.

Objectivity is typically a group or consensus analysis/conclusion, while subjectivity is often a more personal analysis/conclusion. If we all agree of something, that is called being objective. If we, as a group, have different interpretations of the data that is called being subjective. However, subjectivity can also be a form of objectivity, at the personal level.

For example, say I eat a new type of food. My reaction to the food can be very sincere; objective to me, even if not like anyone else. I am being objective to my body and brain's reaction, to the new spice. However, since I am not running with the herd, my objective analysis will be called subjective by the herd.

On the other hand, at one time the consensus thought the earth was flat and anyone claiming that it was round was being subjective. In this case, the prestige of the leaders, gave their subjectivity, an extra subjective boost, so they could form a consensus and be called objective.

There is an entire range of internal; introspective data, that falls into the category of being both subjective and objective due to the philosophy of science setting the standard. For example, dreams are something most people have experienced. One can become objective to the data in the dreams and relate the dream to others. However, this data cannot be seen from the outside, using the third person tools of science. Since this violates the philosophy of science; need to be reproducible data, it will be called subjective, even though the individual assessment can be objective. It comes down to the group versus the individual.

Philosophy can address some of this individual objectivity, called subjectivity, but neuroscience is limited by the Philosophy of Science and cannot fully address this. Consciousness lies at the interface of sensory time delay and neural processing, such that the data it receives is an integration of the two. Neuroscience tries to separate the two, which is not what consciousness will see from the inside. Their approach is consistent with their philosophy but not to internal objectivity which lies outside that philosophy.

The philosophy of science was developed to factor out the internal data and subjective side of things. If a group of scientists went into the woods and someone hears a sound, but nobody else does, the sound will be factored out, since this was not reproducible by the team. However, it is still a form of internal data. This line in the sand was very useful for centuries. However, when exploring the brain and consciousness there is more than the sensory systems. There is no consensus; objective, science definition for consciousness since the needed internal data is left out by its own philosophy.