Objective Reality

[Curious George]

I like the part I highlighted, that's something that can be worked with. More on that in a moment though.

I'm not sure about the rest of it. Defining objective reality as "existing" doesn't really tell us much and loops back round to the problem of defining objective reality in the first place. That bit potentially undermines some of the practicality of this definition. What is or isn't consequential is highly subjective. Nicaraguan agriculture is of less consequence to me than Frankenstein's monster is. However, most people would argue that Nicaraguan agriculture exists and the monster does not (that's possibly a separate debate though). At any rate, the addition of consequential makes the consistency of this particular definition a little more shaky.

Now, if we were to boil this down to "The source from which we derive our perception" it seems to be a consistent definition. However, the problem then becomes how to determine such a thing. I personally would consider that question an important consideration as far as practicality is concerned. I realise I didn't make that clear earlier, so that one's on me.

I will think about this some more though as it's certainly among the better definitions I've seen. Most people just say something along the lines of "something that's real" and leave it at that.

Your perception of Frankenstein comes from something, that something must be part of an objective reality. Someone can go all matrix but eventually the line stops. When it stops, you are talking about objective reality. Therefore, objective reality is consequential even in your Frankenstein approach.

Your perception of Frankenstein however, is truly inconsequential to me provided that I perceive your actions to that perception of Frankenstein the same. This sentence sounds a little off, so let me try to clarify. If I create a monster and describe this monster to you, you will have a subjective view of this monster from my attempts at describing my subjective view of this monster. Now, if you were colorblind and everytime I said blue, you envisioned green. My actual subjective view bears no consequence to you, only your perception of thee events. Hopefully, this makes sense. If not, I can try again.

 

[EtuMalku]

Dreams could play a role in our reality. Even they are not real, they may, in some case to change a course of some parts of our objective life.

Dreams are part of our subjective universe which always influences our perception of the objective universe, but does not alter the objective universe directly

 

[1137]

Dreams and such are not part of objective reality, they are part of subjective reality.

But they do consistently exist in our shared reality. Dream content may be subjective, but wouldn't the existence of dreams be an objective fact?

 

[EtuMalku]

But they do consistently exist in our shared reality. Dream content may be subjective, but wouldn't the existence of dreams be an objective fact?

They have yet to be measured in any capacity, like thoughts, we know they exist but only subjectively

 

[Covellite]

To EtuMalku:
Do you believe in free will? If you do, is free will objective?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Just in case nobody has already said it.....'The Matrix has you.'

Seriously though. No. There is no way to prove that you all are not constructs of my own imagination, along with my wife and children, and the orange sunrise I remember seeing this morning. If there were inconsistencies, then my mind would blur over them and make me think that all was well.
But if this is all just a dream, then I should not just sit and let it pass before my "eyes", but rather I should endeavor to make it a lucid dream wherein I might exercise a smidgen of control, and thereby enjoy it more.
Perhaps as wakefulness aproaches (at 'death' or whenever), then perhaps I might notice that transition.

 

[Sunstone]

"Objective reality" is an often convenient, but ultimately unnecessary concept.

 

[Quintessence]

How do you know that all that scientific activity isn't just happening in your mind?

Common bloody sense and a lack of extreme narcissism to the point of a herculean god-complex. If I died tomorrow, I'm sorry, but the world would not cease to exist. Thinking otherwise strikes me as classic god-complex narcissism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It sounded like you were saying there is no external reality (aka, "objective" reality) ..

Are you sure? What if it all arose from 'absolute nothing' (something like virtual particles).

 

[Willamena]

I've been in a debate over objective reality which has wetted my appetite, but unfortunately the individual I was debating refuses to engage in actual philosophy. So now I bring the question to all! Can you prove objective reality exists?

Not until you define terms.

That other minds are real, that you're not a brain in a vat, that there is an objective universe, and so on? Arguments and evidence are great, but proof would definitely win you some points, though I don't believe such proof is possible.

My position is that there very much is an objective universe, but if you are successful in mistaking it for an objective universe, you've only done well.

 

[Thief]

I've been in a debate over objective reality which has wetted my appetite, but unfortunately the individual I was debating refuses to engage in actual philosophy. So now I bring the question to all! Can you prove objective reality exists? That other minds are real, that you're not a brain in a vat, that there is an objective universe, and so on? Arguments and evidence are great, but proof would definitely win you some points, though I don't believe such proof is possible.

ok....so bang your head on a wall til it bleeds.....

real enough?

 

[RedDragon94]

Can you prove objective reality exists?

I think the rate at which I am experiencing things through my five senses can only be explained as reality.

 

[RedDragon94]

And, question. How would we know what it's like for our brains to be in a vat?

 

[Mister Emu]

The only objective reality one can "prove" is the existence of one's mind: cogito. Everything else could theoretically be an invention of the mind.

Objective reality is the physical word that we can all observe. If a scientist can see it, then it is objectively real.

Prove the scientist.

 

[buddhist]

Our ability or inability to perceive objective reality has no bearing on the objective universe, it exists with or without us to witness it

How do you know that "objective universe" exists in the first place?

 

[buddhist]

The only objective reality one can "prove" is the existence of one's mind: cogito. Everything else could theoretically be an invention of the mind.

Prove the scientist.

Exactly!

 

[outhouse]

Prove the scientist.

Sure your only typing a reply due to said scientist work.

The fact your alive, you can only thank scientist at the CDC for staying ahead of what mythology and deities of all definitions ignore.

 

[Reflex]

I've been in a debate over objective reality which has wetted my appetite, but unfortunately the individual I was debating refuses to engage in actual philosophy. So now I bring the question to all! Can you prove objective reality exists? That other minds are real, that you're not a brain in a vat, that there is an objective universe, and so on? Arguments and evidence are great, but proof would definitely win you some points, though I don't believe such proof is possible.

Can you prove that it matters?

 

[Willamena]

And, question. How would we know what it's like for our brains to be in a vat?

Simple. It would be like there was no vat.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sure your only typing a reply due to said scientist work.

The fact your alive, you can only thank scientist at the CDC for staying ahead of what mythology and deities of all definitions ignore.

As you've failed entirely to grasp the point, and instead of of the fun voyage it would be to walk you all the way down to the basics I'll just skip to it.

Prove the material world exists for there to be scientists, computers, and the CDC at all.