Does perception require some assumption? — Cidat

Perception requires a reference point, that will inherently be subjective. Fill in the dots.

So our perception of reality is subjective?

So our perception of reality is subjective? — Cidat

Depends on the language, no?

Mathematics, physics, and formal languages require no reference point as an "I". They're about as objective as you can get.

How you perceive an apple might be different to how I might perceive it. But it's still the same thing that's perceived. So yeah, we share the same language framework.

How you perceive an apple might be different to how I might perceive it. But it's still the same thing that's perceived. So yeah, we share the same language framework. — Cidat

If we're strictly speaking about perception, then there's a differential at play, being the subject.

But, yes, the object is the same in reality.

Eating the apple would seem to produce the subjective differential, for example.

Objective truth can only be objectively perceived. This is what throws me off, sort of. This leads me to think that there is a fundamental starting point that is objective.

Objective truths can only be subjectively known. You can be aware of something that is real, but you have to be honest in what you know about it. You can perceive the world, but no one knows what light is, or how the brain works.

It is impossible to be objective. No one knows.

regardless of perspective or bias, — Cidat

The odd thing is that there are things that remain the case, regardless of what one thinks about them. That is, their truth remains, regardless of one's perspective or bias.

But if truth depends on bias and perspective, how could that be?

Is strict objectivity theoretically possible?

Might there be something wrong with this question?

Perception requires a reference point, — Shawn

Hm. I'm not convinced of the relevance of this. I can understand what it is like to see something from another perspective. As we sit facing each other at table, I can understand that my knife is on my right, and yours on your right, despite yours being on my left.

Objective truths can only be subjectively known. You can be aware of something that is real, but you have to be honest in what you know about it. You can perceive the world, but no one knows what light is, or how the brain works.

It is impossible to be objective. No one knows. — neonspectraltoast

You claim that objective truths can only be subjectively known; yet you and I both know that this sentence is in English. So, how is it that, that the sentence is in English is not an objective truth, as you claim? Do you suppose that someone might inspect the sentence and, given their particular biases and perspectives, conclude that it is in French?

...and if they did, wouldn't it be reasonable for you and I to say that they are wrong?

Exactly. And you just said that objectivity is possible; namely, that it can be objectively known that the world exists.

If a sick person perceives themselves as being sick, and they survive by eating and drinking, isn't there some fundamental objectivity at play? We in society all share the same abstraction of reality; otherwise, language would be a useless tool for interaction.

Objective truth or objective reality may exist, that is, there may exist truths that are true regardless of perspective or bias, but is it possible for a perceiver to be provably objective about truth? It's one thing to try to be objective, but another to be provably so. Does perception require some assumption? — Cidat

What you are asking is type of issue called a "non trivial problem", which means it is either very, very difficult to solve or can not be solved at all.

All perception requires us to use a reference point to grasp an aspect of reality, but it is a given that most if not all times we are gazing into one of these aspects of reality we are blinded we are blinded to certain other characteristics of said reality that might be perceivable from a different reference point.

If you want to understand this issue I recommend reading up on a Jain concept called "Anekantavada" (no one sidedness) which is the story of the three blind men and the elephant is based upon. There is a Wiki page on the subject but it doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment so I can not say it will work when you try it.

A good rule of thumb I have kind of learned from Anekantavada is no ideology is always "right" or "wrong" when it comes to visualizing issues and the world around us and sometimes thinking of any given ideology as a merely a tool to help us deal with the world and that some problems require different ideologies or even more than one ideology at a time to grasp an issue making it obvious that always rekying on one ideology for all problems creates a "if all one has is a hammer everything is a nail" issue when one is dogmatically reliant on only one ideology/one way of thinking.

Anekantavada — dclements

:up: :clap:

I was just wondering...the truth here is the entire elephant which, in my view, represents the coherent whole. So, do the various branches of knowledge we've engaged in so far come together in the form of a majestic elephant or is what we get something out of the island of Dr. Moreau, a monstrosity?

...the truth here is the entire elephant — TheMadFool

As if the elephant had no parts.

There's a switch that's taken place here, a move from the sort of truth that can be objective or subjective has been replaced by a somewhat mystical holistic truth.

I'm not convinced that that's a good thing to do. Seems to me it might obscure the truth...

As if the elephant had no parts.

Thinking that the whole is somehow more true than the parts is muddled; it shows a misunderstanding of "true". — Banno

Then in what sense were the blind gentlemen failing to see the truth were it not for the fact that they didn't recognize the elephant? :chin:

Do you think that the fellow who touched the trunk did not speak truly?

Of course he spoke the truth.

Do you think that the fellow who touched the trunk did not speak truly? — Banno

Of course he did but an elephant is not a tubular structure. He failed to see the trunk was only half the picture. Note, they were given an elephant and were duly informed that what they were feeling was an elephant.

...the truth here is the entire elephant — TheMadFool

Well, no, it isn't. Each of the observtions is also true.

Well, no, it isn't. Each of the observtions is also true. — Banno

but the elephant is definitely not just the trunk.

Objective truth or objective reality may exist, that is, there may exist truths that are true regardless of perspective or bias, but is it possible for a perceiver to be provably objective about truth? It's one thing to try to be objective, but another to be provably so. Does perception require some assumption? — Cidat

The fact that truth can be distorted underpins the idea of objectivity. The wikipedia article cites perception, emotion and imagination as possible causes of truth distortion. Therefore, to prove one is being objective you'd have to show that none of the aforementioned things were faulty when it was employed in truth finding.

That suggests to me that there is no objective knowledge. Objective knowledge requires an objective framework (or reference point).

That suggests to me that there is no objective knowledge. Objective knowledge requires an objective framework (or reference point). — Cidat

What means you by reference point? :chin:

Starting point for reasoning. Personally I believe that we can aspire for objectivity when understanding reality, but never actually reach it.

But how do we know that mathematics is 100% accurate? How can we show that some of our mathematical deductions weren't skewed by human error or emotions?

Starting point for reasoning. Personally I believe that we can aspire for objectivity when understanding reality, but never actually reach it. — Cidat

Knowledge consists of propositions that are justified and justification lends to such propositions the quality we're discussing, to wit objectivity. So, if there's any lack/loss of objectivity it must be with the premises of the justificatory process. It makes sense then that perception, emotion and imagination are thought of as stumbling blocks because they're more closely associated with premises rather than the validity of arguments (justification). What you say is true then; after all how are we to ever know our perceptions, emotions, and imagination aren't interfering in what we take to be true premises? Corroboration may help in correcting errors of perception, involvement of a disinterested party may check our emotions, and imagination is more or less countered by reality coming down hard on daydreamers. However, these are imperfect countermeasures and some mistakes are bound to slip through these defenses.

It sounds to me like you're implying that we cannot ever be guaranteed to be 100% correct about anything we claim to know (fallibilism). Is that right?

It sounds to me like you're implying that we cannot ever be guaranteed to be 100% correct about anything we claim to know (fallibilism). Is that right? — Cidat

Yes, but not because there is no objective reality. Let's just say the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves. Fallibilism, yes.

The most extreme skeptics would argue that objectivity is even in principle impossible. But I guess that's another discussion and not relevant for humanity.