The objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
Objectivity is purely an application of context.
One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.
I agree with Eodnhoj7 on this.
The problem there is no one to decide what is absolute unconditional objectivity.
If there is a decision by anyone or any group of humans, then it cannot be absolutely objective.
Objectivity is intersubjective -consensus or intersubjectivity within a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality and Knowledge of which the scientific FSRK is the gold standard and the morality-proper FSRK following closely.
Thus objectivity comes in a continuum from low to high depending on the constitution of the specific FSERK.
The most critical test of objectivity is empirical verifiability, justification and repeatability that can be applied practically to serve the well-being of the individuals and the flourishing of humanity. That is what science and medicine has done in varying degrees of objectivity.
Sina Mirzaye Shirkoohi wrote:...observations are interpreted within theoretical frameworks, and as those frameworks change, so does our understanding of the observations.
I agree with pretty much everything in the article: science is a human construct and not objective.
Although it could be objective it is sadly not yet.
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 1:02 pm
Having said that, it doesn't seem to me that whatever theory we laden our observations with, they can create or negate those observations.
Again, further proof of the 'waste of time' of theories and theorizing. Especially considering the alternative.
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 1:02 pm
Stuff happens, it affects us and regardless of theory or paradigm through which we filter it, the stuff that happens, happens, I'm fairly confident, independently of how it is interpreted.
Further proof of what to look for, and at, will always be the better alternative.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 3:56 amTheory is the observation for observation is interpretation...
Well, all interpretations are theory laden, and it is certainly true that experiments are generally designed with some interpretation in mind. To that extent observations are determined by interpretations, but that observation is interpretation is a stretch.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 3:56 am...truth is story telling.
Not in my book. Philosophy is story telling, as are scientific hypotheses. Things can be true in the context of a story, but we can never be sure our stories are true.
Again, False claims are made as though they are true.
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:33 pmPhilosophy is story telling, as are scientific hypotheses. Things can be true in the context of a story, but we can never be sure our stories are true.
not true? but Horton heard that Who...
and no, Pete wasn't there
-Imp
Ah well, you see when Horton heard that Who, all that the other animals knew was that Horton had the experience of hearing the who. You have to sympathise with them, a 'Who' from a mote, whodda thunk? And certainly there would have been alternative explanations up until the point when it was demonstrated that Horton had heard a Who.
One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.
I agree with Eodnhoj7 on this.
The problem there is no one to decide what is absolute unconditional objectivity.
If there is a decision by anyone or any group of humans, then it cannot be absolutely objective.
Here is another one who has obviously not thought this through fully
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:20 am
Objectivity is intersubjective -consensus or intersubjectivity within a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality and Knowledge of which the scientific FSRK is the gold standard and the morality-proper FSRK following closely.
Thus objectivity comes in a continuum from low to high depending on the constitution of the specific FSERK.
The most critical test of objectivity is empirical verifiability, justification and repeatability that can be applied practically to serve the well-being of the individuals and the flourishing of humanity. That is what science and medicine has done in varying degrees of objectivity.
'This one' has come back claiming the exact same things, which it could not back up, support, and prove last.
One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.
The physical world is a distinction, one cannot point to the empirical but by conceptualization. Concepts are contexts.
Ok, perhaps we are splitting hairs here, would the reaction to pattern recognition be the same as your conceptualization? Would identifying an object be your idea of conceptualization? Would a sensation of the body, and then an understanding of that sensation, relative to what it means to the body/organism, have the same meaning?
Splitting hairs is part of the philosophy game precisely because philosophy exists because of distinctions...and all things knowable recourse to philosophy.
Reaction is a distinction, a pattern within the pattern of pattern recognition.
Consciousness is inseperable from distinction for not only is that how consciousness occurs but it in itself reduces to a distinction.
The objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
Objectivity is purely an application of context.
One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.
Without context things become indistinct. Dually a thing is a context.
One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.
I agree with Eodnhoj7 on this.
The problem there is no one to decide what is absolute unconditional objectivity.
If there is a decision by anyone or any group of humans, then it cannot be absolutely objective.
Objectivity is intersubjective -consensus or intersubjectivity within a specific human-based Framework and System of Reality and Knowledge of which the scientific FSRK is the gold standard and the morality-proper FSRK following closely.
Thus objectivity comes in a continuum from low to high depending on the constitution of the specific FSERK.
The most critical test of objectivity is empirical verifiability, justification and repeatability that can be applied practically to serve the well-being of the individuals and the flourishing of humanity. That is what science and medicine has done in varying degrees of objectivity.
Correct about intersubjectivity...you nailed it with that simple term.
Objectivity is shared subjective states for given the experiential nature of consciousness the nature of subjectivity cannot be avoided thus an objective truth which spans across subjective states is reducible to aligned subjective states. To claim objectivity is to observe a looping of subjective experiences, a recursion of subjective realities that does not necessarily transcend the individual but rather aligns one individual with another through a pattern within the experiential subjective state. In these respects objectivity is the rationalization of the subjective where align subjective states form a ratio.
Apparent reality, our everyday reality is to be considered the relation of energy forms, each dependent upon the other for its perceived reality, or as in the Hindu net of Indra, each reflects the other gems in the net. Another way of saying this is that each energy form/object is a cause to every other energy form/object in the world due to its reaction, which becomes a cause. Being is cause and reaction, forming the net of reality.
The physical world is a distinction, one cannot point to the empirical but by conceptualization. Concepts are contexts.
Ok, perhaps we are splitting hairs here, would the reaction to pattern recognition be the same as your conceptualization? Would identifying an object be your idea of conceptualization? Would a sensation of the body, and then an understanding of that sensation, relative to what it means to the body/organism, have the same meaning?
Splitting hairs is part of the philosophy game precisely because philosophy exists because of distinctions...and all things knowable recourse to philosophy.
Reaction is a distinction, a pattern within the pattern of pattern recognition.
Consciousness is inseparable from distinction for not only is that how consciousness occurs but it in itself reduces to a distinction.
As compound reactions! For distinction is reaction to the outward causes of the world as object, the world of other relative beings are cause to us, and our conscious reactions are causes to them. I think we are saying the same thing with differing terminology.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 11:11 pm
What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent just like what is subjective is context dependent.
Is the above meant to be a "non-context dependent" statement? If so, then your statement begs to stand separately from other statements as being an "objective" one that applies across the board under all circumstances. If it's true, then it disproves itself. If it's false, then it is false. Relativism is its own worst enemy.
This is actually a tricky subject. SCIENCE is a system, a method, an activity, being carried out by human beings, inherently subjective beings, operating in social settings. I would say IN THE LONG RUN science manages to be objective, but the long run means often it is a new generation of scientists which allows advance (the old one too subjectively committed to theories that are wrong.)
On of the best areas of science to see this in is medicine, which admittedly is often described as "a science and an art". An area where advances as often held up by existing theories as advanced. We can actually be surprised by the length of time some advances took (after technology existed to allow the advance. Let's examine "germ theory" (diseases caused by microscopic living things)
In the 16th-17th Century devices were developed that allowed science to see/recognize that there were living things far too small to see with the naked eye. It was only in the mid 19th Century that this became accepted as the cause of disease.
SOMETIMES medicine did advance "contrary to theory" on the basis of "it just works". Thus known/accepted that smallpox could be transmitted by contact, and by the end of the 18th Century, we had vaccination. Understand? NOT explained by imbalance of humors or bad air. Just "works". And in THIS case maybe a good thing not addressed "scientifically". IF had mixed the exudate, etc. in water, filtered till nothing visible even in the most powerful microscopes, that water would STILL have transmitted smallpox. So would look like "magic" transmission.
OTHER times somebody subjectively sensed the truth, but because they could not explain in terms of existing medical theory, rejected as insane. Semmelweis was right, his doctors were transmitting blood poisoning going from autopsies to patients without washing. He must have had an inkling "something alive" when he ordered washing not just with water but with chlorate of lime solution. But this was all against the then accepted theories of medicine. No theory why except "it worked" (mortality rate in the maternity hospital dropping from 18% to 2%). The medical establishment had him committed to an insane asylum (it didn't help that his opponents could argue hand washing just a Jewish superstition) << but his students lectured across Europe, and it was students in the lecture halls who went on to prove germ theory.>>
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 11:11 pm
What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent just like what is subjective is context dependent.
Is the above meant to be a "non-context dependent" statement? If so, then your statement begs to stand separately from other statements as being an "objective" one that applies across the board under all circumstances. If it's true, then it disproves itself. If it's false, then it is false. Relativism is its own worst enemy.
Context provides the context for all contexts thus context is everpresent where infinite contexts within and without effectively leave a void that contains all contexts.
Objectivity is mirroring subjective states thus by nature is intersubjectivity.
Ok, perhaps we are splitting hairs here, would the reaction to pattern recognition be the same as your conceptualization? Would identifying an object be your idea of conceptualization? Would a sensation of the body, and then an understanding of that sensation, relative to what it means to the body/organism, have the same meaning?
Splitting hairs is part of the philosophy game precisely because philosophy exists because of distinctions...and all things knowable recourse to philosophy.
Reaction is a distinction, a pattern within the pattern of pattern recognition.
Consciousness is inseparable from distinction for not only is that how consciousness occurs but it in itself reduces to a distinction.
As compound reactions! For distinction is reaction to the outward causes of the world as object, the world of other relative beings are cause to us, and our conscious reactions are causes to them. I think we are saying the same thing with differing terminology.
Good...different language, same foundations....Wittgenstein's language games....
Reaction is a distinction. Distinctions occur through distinctions where this is a distinction.
What you call "compound" can be viewed synonymously to "superpostioning"...both words can effectively mean "layered dimensions". Compounding molecules, for life, is the overlaying of dimensions, a set of limits, and as such compounding molecules and superpostioned distinctions are terms which reflect eachother.
We seem to be arguing the same thing from different viewpoints.
Splitting hairs is part of the philosophy game precisely because philosophy exists because of distinctions...and all things knowable recourse to philosophy.
Reaction is a distinction, a pattern within the pattern of pattern recognition.
Consciousness is inseparable from distinction for not only is that how consciousness occurs but it in itself reduces to a distinction.
As compound reactions! For distinction is reaction to the outward causes of the world as object, the world of other relative beings are cause to us, and our conscious reactions are causes to them. I think we are saying the same thing with differing terminology.
Good...different language, same foundations....Wittgenstein's language games....
Reaction is a distinction. Distinctions occur through distinctions where this is a distinction.
What you call "compound" can be viewed synonymously to "superpostioning"...both words can effectively mean "layered dimensions". Compounding molecules, for life, is the overlaying of dimensions, a set of limits, and as such compounding molecules and superpostioned distinctions are terms which reflect eachother.
We seem to be arguing the same thing from different viewpoints.
Yes, but there is considerable confusion here as to how consciousness occurs and how meaning manifests itself.