To move this from another thread, where it was off-topic, the question, both specifcially to Dagny, and to everyone in general: what is Objective Reality (which Dagny capitalizes)? What does the word objective mean, and can we agree on at least some of what we all think is part of objective reality?

But the specific question to Dagny is: what do you mean by Objective Reality?

The phrase "objective reality" is another way of saying "the truth" or "fact".

To help maintain objectivity a "scientific method" uses experiments that follow standard procedures to eliminate bias, and "full disclosure" of experimental methods is required so that others can test the results but for economic reasons (regardless of the result of independent retesting) such papers are normally not published by science journals, have to perform experiment(s) yourself to know for sure.

We can agree on facts like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but when it comes to things that are not easily made self-evident, there will likely be differences in opinion. The only way to solve that problem is to better explain things so that they are self-evident, which in my experience rarely happens.

Jack,

Without any "spiritual angle" and "deity like inferences" this below (the first paragraph, in particular) is a rather good description of it. In short, it is scientific materialism with a caveat that new things are always coming up. Add a layer of scientific approach as the most reliable way to get to know and accept as many scientifically possible, repeatable and verifiable facts, theories, and truths as you can is a must, otherwise, subjective bias will creep in and with it subjective reality.

http://www.ahalmaas.com/Glossary/o/obje ... eality.htm

As for capitalizing Objective Reality, I just think it's cool.

DagnyWener




A little more clarification would be nice.

In this context are you suggesting Israel is naively claiming Egypt's discontent with them is unfounded, when in reality it is? Thanks

ABO's comment is off topic here - it belongs in the Jacob's thread. I specifically started this thread so as to not get involved in that thread, so I hope anyone responding to ABO responds there, not here.

Hmmm: the first sentence says, "We are using the term objective reality in contrast to subjective reality, which is reality seen through our inner mental filters that are shaped by our past conditioning." I'm a bit skeptical of this guy's approach. I do believe that science and science-like processes can give us solid knowledge about the material world, but there is a huge amount of what we think and believe that goes beyond facts about the material world and includes various values and other factors that are indeed "seen through our inner mental filters." So if this person's philosophy/method thinks that all those types of things can be put under the rubric of "Objective Reality", then I'm skeptical.

Sorry about that.

Objective Reality  -  Something has objective reality in virtue of representing something else. Descartes applies objective reality only to ideas and does not say whether other representational entities, such as paintings, have objective reality. The amount of objective reality an idea has is determined solely on the basis of the amount of formal reality contained in the thing being represented. An idea of God has infinite objective reality; an idea of your cousin, assuming you have one, has finite objective reality; and idea of red has modal objective reality. The concept of objective reality is crucial to Descartes' causal argument for the existence of God. See also Formal Reality. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/pr ... terms.html

95% of the Universe is not observable.

So much for "Objective Reality".

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html

To ABO: Do you understand any of that, ABO? Also, if you read Dagny's link, I think he's talking about a different idea. In my opinion, saying that ideas have objective reality doesn't make sense.

to Mike: does the fact that 95% of the universe is unobservable mean that there isn't any portion of the universe that can be considered objective reality? What about a tree in your backyard - does it have objective reality, in your opinion?

I agree. From the description of their method it is obviously not based on repeatable experiments so it's not a "scientific method", the proper phrase would seem to be "scientific religion":

http://www.ahalmaas.com/ridhwan_school.htm

Jack

Yes, and Dagny's link doesn't make sense." Without any "spiritual angle" and "deity like inferences" The book information 'Facets of Unity' which is referenced in each of the three paragraphs sited says, "Facets of Unity presents the Enneagram of Holy Ideas as a unique view of reality offering valuable insight to those on the spiritual path. "This book elaborates our view of the truth of the cosmos, the truth of the human being, and the relationship between the two. It explores the spiritual path in relation to God, the world, and the soul - the three primary elements in any spiritual; teaching."

It looks like Gary is right on track with scientific religion.

ABO.......
Yes, and Dagny's link doesn't make sense." Without any "spiritual angle" and "deity like inferences" The book information 'Facets of Unity' which is referenced in each of the three paragraphs sited says, "Facets of Unity presents the Enneagram of Holy Ideas as a unique view of reality offering valuable insight to those on the spiritual path. "This book elaborates our view of the truth of the cosmos, the truth of the human being, and the relationship between the two. It explores the spiritual path in relation to God, the world, and the soul - the three primary elements in any spiritual; teaching." It looks like Gary is right on track with scientific religion.[/quote]


ABO,

What part of "without any "spiritual angle" and "deity like inferences" don't you understand? I specifically referred to the first paragraph as the main reference, so if you take any "spiritual angle" and "deity like inferences" and infuse scientific method, it should work just fine for most of folks in this country at least.

Let's look at it from this perspective. How much effort and time are you actually spending on religious activities or anything related to religion during a week, month or a year (going to sermons, praying, reading religious texts?) I am not considering charity activities as religiously related (secularists do it as well), so we need to find the most stark differences in every day life.

So, if you go weekly to church 1 hour sermon (not driving to it) but actually attending - you'd only spend slightly above 4% of your Sunday on a religious activity . In 1 week it will approximately 0.59% of so of your time. So, you are spending on "subjective reality" 0.59% of your time that others Jews, Muslims, etc. are doing as well.

The rest of your time and existence is in Objective Reality - 99.41% of your time that you share with the rest of the world. You have to work, sleep, eat, relax, watch TV, etc.

If you consider the "humanistic/universalist message" of your church doctrine (the main one being "Love Thy Neighbor" and get all the "god hates gays' sins but love the gays" stuff and similar messages of "subjective" reality) you'd see that you are spending much less than 0.59% of your time (let's take a quarter of it only) - 0.15% in subjective reality of your own making. This also not to mention that the subjective reality you are exposed to is framed within Objective Reality - Bible printed on paper, the church building, sound of pastor's microphone, etc.

Objective Reality wins every time. Your numbers may go up or down, but you live in the Objective Reality world and the more Objective Reality phenomena you comprehend, the better it is for you and others around you. E.g. If you combine drinking your coffee in the car going to work and listening to "Fox News" on a podcast on your iPod, instead of drinking coffee while watching "Fox News" on TV in the morning, you have saved some time in this Objective Reality which you can waste on your subjective reality.

Huge amounts of our life are about what I would consider subjective reality: not religion, but things like emotions, values, aesthetic preferences, etc. It doesn't make any sense to me to say that we are all living in Objective Reality 99% of the time.

I actually don't think this dichotomy between subjective and objective reality is useful. There is an objective world (a world of objects, etymologically), but our behavior in that world adds all sorts of subjective components: we use our understanding of the objective world to interact with that world, but we manifest all sorts of subjective components as we do so. Dagny is using subjective reality in a very narrow sense, limiting it to religious belief, but I don't think that's useful. A flower is an objective object, but my feeling of its beauty is subjective, and has nothing to do with religion.

Jack,

All of these are part of Objective Reality. They can be viewed, evaluated and tested. Even religious experiences are part of OR and can be analyzed.

"Empirical Reality" could be a better term, but then you have to explain to the ignorant conservatives what empirical means. I think that Objective Reality sounds just as good. They will be puzzled just as well.