Can we really experience anything objectively?

[Leigha]

I say no, because our experiences and how we process those experiences, are unique to each of us. Our uniqueness causes us to relate to the world in a subjective way. It's entirely possibly however, to take one's views (opinions?) and offer them as facts, thereby asking (demanding?) others to view those "facts'' as purely objective. We see that behavior quite a bit on here, no?

How do you see it?

[Syne]

Experience? No, all experience is inherently subjective. But we can compare and test shared experience to establish objective reality. We can determine that vibrations in the air still exist without anyone to experience sound. This is the value of science.

[Leigha]

Okay. So, our perception of the same thing(s) that objectively exist(s), is ultimately processed differently (by us, as individuals). But, can we ever know the objective truth that lies beyond what our perceptions and senses (sensibilities?) tell us? 

Cogito ergo sum 

[Syne]

The only reason to believe that we can't know the objective truth beyond our experiences is if we believe in a truly solipsistic universe, where the experiences of others we use to compare and test reality are all themselves suspect of not being real. Bit of a rabbit hole in that direction. The ultimate narcissistic navel-gazer.

[C C]

I say no, because our experiences and how we process those experiences, are unique to each of us. Our uniqueness causes us to relate to the world in a subjective way. It's entirely possibly however, to take one's views (opinions?) and offer them as facts, thereby asking (demanding?) others to view those "facts'' as purely objective. We see that behavior quite a bit on here, no? How do you see it?

Three people running from a pack of wild dogs have agreement about their immediate, extrospective experiences (it's not unique to just one of them). But as the classification of "objective" extends toward non-immediate affairs tackled by reflective thought and represented by concepts, then agreement varies.

Injuries, drug effects, congenital and later developing clinical conditions can of course result in immediate perceptions which differ from the mainstream. Although one might figuratively assert that all human brains are running the same operating system, it's malleable and receptive to damage.

Cognition or understanding of what one senses isn't the same. A chair may be present in everyone's outer experience, but one person runs into it as they leave because he's distracted or has slower apprehension of the environment. A scientist may walk into a research lab and identify everything in a specific way. Whereas an outsider observing it is generalizing more things as "stuff" or whatever collective labels.

~

[Leigha]

I say no, because our experiences and how we process those experiences, are unique to each of us. Our uniqueness causes us to relate to the world in a subjective way. It's entirely possibly however, to take one's views (opinions?) and offer them as facts, thereby asking (demanding?) others to view those "facts'' as purely objective. We see that behavior quite a bit on here, no? How do you see it?

Three people running from a pack of wild dogs have agreement about their immediate, extrospective experiences (it's not unique to just one of them). But as the classification of "objective" extends toward non-immediate affairs tackled by reflective thought and represented by concepts, then agreement varies.  

Injuries, drug effects, congenital and later developing clinical conditions can of course result in immediate perceptions which differ from the mainstream. Although one might figuratively assert that all human brains are running the same operating system, it's malleable and receptive to damage.

Cognition or understanding of what one senses isn't the same. A chair may be present in everyone's outer experience, but one person runs into it as they leave because he's distracted or has slower apprehension of the environment. A scientist may walk into a research lab and identify everything in a specific way. Whereas an outsider observing it is generalizing more things as "stuff" or whatever collective labels.

~

So in other words, the ''chair'' exists objectively, it's there, everyone in the room sees it. But, how each person in the room perceives the chair, may be different.

This becomes more complicated when issues involving morality enter the picture. Borrowing a topic from another thread, the subject of homosexuality seems to bring about different opinions, some considering it to be a lifestyle choice, while others disagree. Is there any objective ''truth'' to such a topic?

[Syne]

This becomes more complicated when issues involving morality enter the picture. Borrowing a topic from another thread, the subject of homosexuality seems to bring about different opinions, some considering it to be a lifestyle choice, while others disagree. Is there any objective ''truth'' to such a topic?

Yeah, there is a problem clearly determining the facts when people have a vested interest in making them fit their feelings. If we can't compare experience honestly, we can't really find a consensus. While skeptical scrutiny can discover the facts, the loudest voices tend to be those coming from emotion.

[C C]

So in other words, the ''chair'' exists objectively, it's there, everyone in the room sees it. But, how each person in the room perceives the chair, may be different.

This becomes more complicated when issues involving morality enter the picture. Borrowing a topic from another thread, the subject of homosexuality seems to bring about different opinions, some considering it to be a lifestyle choice, while others disagree. Is there any objective ''truth'' to such a topic?

There's no absolute or universal reason slash "formula" applying to all individuals, since there are multiple contributing factors. Perhaps not unlike autism, but the latter is classified as a "disorder" because of the often unavoidable challenges it can present. Whereas historical threats and adaptation difficulties for LGBT stem from "special" cultural traditions and prescriptions applying to them particularly, rather than cognitive drawbacks.

- - -

Most scientist today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. Although homosexuality does not appear to be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint, because homosexual sex does not produce children, there is evidence of its existence through human history. Although a number of biological factors have been considered by scientists, such as prenatal hormones, chromosomes, polygenetic effects, brain structure and viral influences, no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation. Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors.

(additional to the above): Homosexuality may be caused by epigenetics
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/h...ations-dna

~

[RainbowUnicorn]

I say no, because our experiences and how we process those experiences, are unique to each of us. Our uniqueness causes us to relate to the world in a subjective way. It's entirely possibly however, to take one's views (opinions?) and offer them as facts, thereby asking (demanding?) others to view those "facts'' as purely objective. We see that behavior quite a bit on here, no?

How do you see it?

objective subjectivity...
these things are not really black & white until you attempt to explain them to someone who is unable to simply accept data as being data.

many people suffer from an emotional co-dependency interactive valuation system that forces them to value data differently dependent on emotional environmental.
(thats a fairly normal human thing)

(opinions?)

all things are opinions unles they have been agreed to by others to be fact or fiction in various forms from group to individual values(in varying degrees and magnitudes).
e.g
"Mexicans need walls to be civilized"
"all Americans need guns to control their own neighborhood"
"all politicians take money from the poor"
"all churches & religions are just trying to get you to give them your money for nothing"
"once you believe in a god, you can no longer believe in anything else"


(demanding?)
physical demands
emotional demands
...
im thinking you mean a mix of the 2 ?

---

I say no, because our experiences and how we process those experiences, are unique to each of us. Our uniqueness causes us to relate to the world in a subjective way. It's entirely possibly however, to take one's views (opinions?) and offer them as facts, thereby asking (demanding?) others to view those "facts'' as purely objective. We see that behavior quite a bit on here, no? How do you see it?

Three people running from a pack of wild dogs have agreement about their immediate, extrospective experiences (it's not unique to just one of them). But as the classification of "objective" extends toward non-immediate affairs tackled by reflective thought and represented by concepts, then agreement varies.  

Injuries, drug effects, congenital and later developing clinical conditions can of course result in immediate perceptions which differ from the mainstream. Although one might figuratively assert that all human brains are running the same operating system, it's malleable and receptive to damage.

Cognition or understanding of what one senses isn't the same. A chair may be present in everyone's outer experience, but one person runs into it as they leave because he's distracted or has slower apprehension of the environment. A scientist may walk into a research lab and identify everything in a specific way. Whereas an outsider observing it is generalizing more things as "stuff" or whatever collective labels.

~

like button

[Image: LikeButton304.jpg]

---

So in other words, the ''chair'' exists objectively, it's there, everyone in the room sees it. But, how each person in the room perceives the chair, may be different.

This becomes more complicated when issues involving morality enter the picture. Borrowing a topic from another thread, the subject of homosexuality seems to bring about different opinions, some considering it to be a lifestyle choice, while others disagree. Is there any objective ''truth'' to such a topic?

There's no absolute or universal reason slash "formula" applying to all individuals, since there are multiple contributing factors. Perhaps not unlike autism, but the latter is classified as a "disorder" because of the often unavoidable challenges it can present. Whereas historical threats and adaptation difficulties for LGBT stem from "special" cultural traditions and prescriptions applying to them particularly, rather than cognitive drawbacks.

- - -

Most scientist today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. Although homosexuality does not appear to be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint, because homosexual sex does not produce children, there is evidence of its existence through human history. Although a number of biological factors have been considered by scientists, such as prenatal hormones, chromosomes, polygenetic effects, brain structure and viral influences, no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation. Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors.

(additional to the above): Homosexuality may be caused by epigenetics
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/h...ations-dna

~

Leigh, if you wish to use comparative moral equity(is the moral base of a moral consideration equal in its application by how it is used on all things, OR is it just applied to a single instance to pretend it is a moral when in fact it is personal opinion/dysfunction etc).

evolutionary benefits of wife bashing...
evolutionary benefits of child abuse
evolutionary benefits of killing your female partner...

now look at how religious groups act and promote the agenda of anti-gay and label it anti natural
while they sit by doing nothing about domestic homicide and child abuse.


you dont see conservative church groups making special political groups rallying against domestic homicide or child abuse.


why ?
because there is no moral equity between being anti-gay and being anti-wife/child beater.

this shows they are morally corrupt/dishonest.

[Leigha]

So in other words, the ''chair'' exists objectively, it's there, everyone in the room sees it. But, how each person in the room perceives the chair, may be different.

This becomes more complicated when issues involving morality enter the picture. Borrowing a topic from another thread, the subject of homosexuality seems to bring about different opinions, some considering it to be a lifestyle choice, while others disagree. Is there any objective ''truth'' to such a topic?

There's no absolute or universal reason slash "formula" applying to all individuals, since there are multiple contributing factors. Perhaps not unlike autism, but the latter is classified as a "disorder" because of the often unavoidable challenges it can present. Whereas historical threats and adaptation difficulties for LGBT stem from "special" cultural traditions and prescriptions applying to them particularly, rather than cognitive drawbacks.

- - -

Most scientist today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. Although homosexuality does not appear to be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint, because homosexual sex does not produce children, there is evidence of its existence through human history. Although a number of biological factors have been considered by scientists, such as prenatal hormones, chromosomes, polygenetic effects, brain structure and viral influences, no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation. Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors.

(additional to the above): Homosexuality may be caused by epigenetics
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/h...ations-dna

~

Very good point. How about laws, like speeding limits and those that govern our justice system? Do most people feel that murder is objectively wrong, for example? Yet there are many murderers in prison. Do we presume that they subjectively believe murder to be acceptable, or do they too believe it to be an objectively immoral act, yet simply tried to skirt the law? No right or wrong answers, perhaps - just picking your brain.

I say no, because our experiences and how we process those experiences, are unique to each of us. Our uniqueness causes us to relate to the world in a subjective way. It's entirely possibly however, to take one's views (opinions?) and offer them as facts, thereby asking (demanding?) others to view those "facts'' as purely objective. We see that behavior quite a bit on here, no?

How do you see it?

objective subjectivity...
these things are not really black & white until you attempt to explain them to someone who is unable to simply accept data as being data.

many people suffer from an emotional co-dependency interactive valuation system that forces them to value data differently dependent on emotional environmental.
(thats a fairly normal human thing)

(opinions?)

all things are opinions unles they have been agreed to by others to be fact or fiction in various forms from group to individual values(in varying degrees and magnitudes).
e.g
"Mexicans need walls to be civilized"
"all Americans need guns to control their own neighborhood"
"all politicians take money from the poor"
"all churches & religions are just trying to get you to give them your money for nothing"
"once you believe in a god, you can no longer believe in anything else"


(demanding?)
physical demands
emotional demands
...
im thinking you mean a mix of the 2 ?

---

I say no, because our experiences and how we process those experiences, are unique to each of us. Our uniqueness causes us to relate to the world in a subjective way. It's entirely possibly however, to take one's views (opinions?) and offer them as facts, thereby asking (demanding?) others to view those "facts'' as purely objective. We see that behavior quite a bit on here, no? How do you see it?

Three people running from a pack of wild dogs have agreement about their immediate, extrospective experiences (it's not unique to just one of them). But as the classification of "objective" extends toward non-immediate affairs tackled by reflective thought and represented by concepts, then agreement varies.  

Injuries, drug effects, congenital and later developing clinical conditions can of course result in immediate perceptions which differ from the mainstream. Although one might figuratively assert that all human brains are running the same operating system, it's malleable and receptive to damage.

Cognition or understanding of what one senses isn't the same. A chair may be present in everyone's outer experience, but one person runs into it as they leave because he's distracted or has slower apprehension of the environment. A scientist may walk into a research lab and identify everything in a specific way. Whereas an outsider observing it is generalizing more things as "stuff" or whatever collective labels.

~

like button

[Image: LikeButton304.jpg]

---

So in other words, the ''chair'' exists objectively, it's there, everyone in the room sees it. But, how each person in the room perceives the chair, may be different.

This becomes more complicated when issues involving morality enter the picture. Borrowing a topic from another thread, the subject of homosexuality seems to bring about different opinions, some considering it to be a lifestyle choice, while others disagree. Is there any objective ''truth'' to such a topic?

There's no absolute or universal reason slash "formula" applying to all individuals, since there are multiple contributing factors. Perhaps not unlike autism, but the latter is classified as a "disorder" because of the often unavoidable challenges it can present. Whereas historical threats and adaptation difficulties for LGBT stem from "special" cultural traditions and prescriptions applying to them particularly, rather than cognitive drawbacks.

- - -

Most scientist today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. Although homosexuality does not appear to be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint, because homosexual sex does not produce children, there is evidence of its existence through human history. Although a number of biological factors have been considered by scientists, such as prenatal hormones, chromosomes, polygenetic effects, brain structure and viral influences, no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation. Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors.

(additional to the above): Homosexuality may be caused by epigenetics
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/h...ations-dna

~

Leigh, if you wish to use comparative moral equity(is the moral base of a moral consideration equal in its application by how it is used on all things, OR is it just applied to a single instance to pretend it is a moral when in fact it is personal opinion/dysfunction etc).

evolutionary benefits of wife bashing...
evolutionary benefits of child abuse
evolutionary benefits of killing your female partner...

now look at how religious groups act and promote the agenda of anti-gay and label it anti natural
while they sit by doing nothing about domestic homicide and child abuse.


you dont see conservative church groups making special political groups rallying against domestic homicide or child abuse.


why ?
because there is no moral equity between being anti-gay and being anti-wife/child beater.

this shows they are morally corrupt/dishonest.

In your examples above, while that is completely true (your correlation between how religious groups promote different agendas) - I'm not sure this unequivocally means that those same groups believe that domestic homicide and child abuse aren't heinous offenses to humanity. Those offenses don't make for the best political platforms during presidential campaigns, so they just don't get the same consideration. It doesn't mean though that they don't believe those crimes to be objectively offensive.

I think when it comes to harming others, there are unwavering, objective truths. Justifying one's bad behaviors (''I stole because I'm hungry'') doesn't negate that stealing is objectively immoral. We can still have empathy for those who break laws, and try to help them live better lives. There is a danger in a society that has no laws based on objective truths. It would result in anarchy. I'm not sure if this answers your question?