DIALOGUES I - Subjective Realities

I've taken the liberty to publish excerpts from a philosophical conversation I had with other members of Understanding Politics.

Here is a conversation for your consideration (edited):

Frodo:
Numbers describe reality. This is their purpose.

sourmonkey:
sure, and money describes power as its purpose, and god describes meaning as its purpose. Of course, all of these symbols (including the numbers) are inventions of the human psyche. Their value is also determined by the human psyche (as in no dog understands Pi). The numbers we use are subjective in value, therefore, our reality as defined by our understanding of symbols is likewise subjective.

In REALITY, numbers approximate reality. There purpose is only determined by our minds.

You only believe what you want to believe, Frodo.

Frodo:
And what kind of fool thinks volcanos and earthquakes are the result of man's activity? Oh right.... A liberal fool (sorry for the redundancy).

sourmonkey:
You're in left field, er, right field Frodo. I never implied this. Why did you interpret this?

What kind of fool thinks the terrorists "hate freedom"?
What kind of fool thinks mercury levels are safe at some level?
What kind of fool thinks Americans are the center of existence?
What kind of fool thinks climate change is not happening?
What kind of fool thinks human society WON'T be affected by climate change?

SimonJester:
What kind of person bases his attacks on a thesis of an entirely subjective reality and expects us to take him seriously when he attempts to rely on the same subjective numbers to prove his points? Indeed, why should we believe that climate change is happening at all?
Tell me SourMonkey – is that air you’re breathing?

sourmonkey:
thank you for asking.

Do I really need to answer your question?

Okay.

1- because our "reality" IS subjective, i.e. DEFINED AND MEASURED BY OUR HUMAN MINDS. I know this really isn't fair... you can't really win an argument here because to deny this is to prove my thesis true. Just accept it and take the next step into the reality of a relativistic universe.

2- not only is CLIMATE CHANGE a reality, but universal entropy, the motivating force behind climate change, is undeniable.

So, within a subjective reality, how do you prove climate change is occuring? How do I know I'm breathing air? How can you KNOW anything?

Oh, like ALL things governing human existence, it's all in the DEFINITIONS (which are subjective, as explained above).

Need I go on? I can, and will, but perhaps you "thinking" people already know where this is going....

How far do you want to go to define your reality?

Interestingly, whenever I ask this (above) question, no one answers it.

SimonJester:
I don’t see how you’re going to uncover some grand truths about the world without accepting some basic assumptions about the way it works. Two and one will always be three, no matter what you call them.

sourmonkey:
Good. Premise One is established.

Premise Two involves cognitive ability, and this is where things get sticky.

You see, One and Two and Three, regardless of the nature of the symbols, only exist because a mind exists to perceive them.

SimonJester:
There's an old riddle, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear, does it still make a sound?" (or of course the feminist variant, "If a man speaks in the woods and no one's around to hear, is he still wrong?". Your reasoning falls along these lines. The answer (to the former...) is of course, "yes". Assuming the universe is something real, "Two" does exist, even without it's conception, just as planets existed long before there were minds to percieve them.

sourmonkey: Sure. I'll give you the "planets" thing... although try thinking about "planets" without using the word "planets"... or ANY word (or mathematical symbol) for that matter. if you can do that, then you might have an idea of how the universe functions without human consciousness.

Personally, I'm still working on it...

"Two", well, that's a different story. No symbols exist outside of the mind of the conceptualizer, therefore, "two" doesn't exist outside of the human mind.

My point in this silly little exercise is that we should be more mindful concerning the nature of our reality, and we should apply this to our understanding of human society and human social relationships. Until we at least recognize these subjective trends, we will always have war, and as we continue to build the unimaginably destructive tools of war, we only ignorantly threaten the very miracle which gives the universe meaning.

SimonJester:
Sure, numbers are conceptual tools, much the same way that the word “planet” is a conceptual tool. So we share at least some common reference point in this conversation. What does this mean?

We base our perceptions of the world using words and concepts that are certainly subjective. Yet if everyone understands “two” and “planet” in exactly the same way, and they do so because the existence of both is implicit in their definition, then how subjective is the reality upon which they are based? You could not use these tools – the decimal numbering system for instance – to prove that “Two” and “one” is “four” without changing the meaning of the word “four”, "one", or "two" – that is, without making our subjective conceptions conform to the real world. This must be done in order to have any useful view of the world – subjective cognitive perception must conform to some underlying structure (reality) in order to be of any utility whatsoever.

Reality exists, whether we think it does or not.

sourmonkey:
I'm not denying the existence of reality, I'm just saying that the nature of OUR reality is subjective.

SimonJester:
"Yet if everyone understands “two” and “planet” in exactly the same way, and they do so because the existence of both is implicit in their definition..."

sourmonkey:
yes, implicit in their definition. the symbols that we use to define the meaning of our reality can be refined per observation and agreement, hence, "fact", but the truth is there are elements to our universe that we have no understanding of (so far...). We're still constructing a vocabulary of symbols to define these events. Look at string theory. Any shmoe from the street could listen to what string theorists speak about and determine that it is utter nonsense simply because, so far, there aren't any "real world" application for hyper dimensional symbols. However, as our technology advances, we develope the means to apply "string theory" to social function.

Another example. Humans perceive only a narrow band of sound and light frequencies. We build our initial understanding of the world within these limitations, but the exercise of technology reveals that radio, microwave, and gamma frequencies are a very "real" part of our universe, and we use symbols to build devices which manipulate these universal functions. Our brains are hardwired to initailly perceive only a limited bandwith, but by extension of our super primate minds we construct methods to see beyond the limitations of our physical existence.

my point is that our understanding of the universe is evolving. in the paradigm of quantum physics every event can be represented by a wave function has well as a corpuscle of matter. this wave/particle duality represents a paradox created ONLY by our observing minds. if the observer stops observing, the paradox resolves, and the universe exists pre cognitively in its natural state... physics is still trying to figure out what that is.

and numbers, well, we MUST agree on their value, otherwise science wouldn't exist, and we'd still be living in caves thinking the stars above our heads are our ancestors.

So, reality is subjective.

this isn't to say reality doesn't exist, nor is it suggesting that our cultural symbols have no real value... it just means that these values are limited by our own understanding, and this is always evolving

SimonJester:
Come on SourMonkey! How can you throw out a bomb like that without clarifying? How should a “Realist” with no background or knowledge of “Subjectivist” theory be expected to interpret that statement? Are you implying there’s more than one reality (ok it’s possible, but so what)? Are you saying that reality doesn’t matter because we can shape it as we see fit?
Or are you saying something more reasonable, as the rest of your post suggests – that Reality exists, that our perception of it is limited by our current understanding, that because we do not have a full understanding we are prone to errors in judgment that impact our view of the world, that people with different knowledge bases and experiences will inherently have different – subjective – views of reality without changing the nature of reality itself.

I’ve noticed that very few Liberals are willing to engage in any debate about Global Warming. This has given me – and probably other conservatives – the impression that they simply take it on Faith and do not actually care to understand the science. I’ve made this clear in many posts on the subject – including the one that prompted him to respond. His response basically boiled down to “There is no debate – all scientists agree” – repeat as necessary. Taking into account my perception of reality, what does his response do to change my perspective of Liberals? Now, what if I attempt to look at this from a Liberal standpoint? Given that I am not a Liberal, this is a challenge. But I did glean something. Liberals believe it so whole-heartedly that debate is not even a realistic consideration for them. Because I question the theory (sorry, “Fact”), I am delusional and cannot be reasoned with – so why bother?

sourmonkey:
just be mindful that all values projected within a "Realist" perspective are arbitrary, and that significance is determined according to the bias of the "Realist" observer.

How else can I say it? How about homgeneity? Everything "out there" is basically another version of "here" but with random entropic differences. The Milky Way galaxy is just another version of those collective forces which create the Andromeda Galaxy. Our solar system is just another version of a solar system in Andromeda. My human mind is just another version of your human mind. My observations, and therefore, my perspective, are another version of yours. There are over six billion "other versions" of the human mind on this planet. "Subjectivist Theory" (if that's what you want to call it) means that 1- the universe exists, but how it exists is determined by those living in it. For example, my cat has no human concept of what the stars, or the sun, or the moon function as. She might not even recognize their existence.

SimonJester:
"Are you implying there’s more than one reality (ok it’s possible, but so what)?"

sourmonkey:
YES! First of all, the only REALITY is the present. It's now.... NOW.... Now... ..... ..... .... now...... ... .... ... now... .... .... ? ... ... now...

Where is all that reality going? The only thing that truly exists is the present moment as it zips through TIME (... and what really is THAT?)

Everything else is displacement in thought, i.e. analysis, memory and prediction.

This is true for every "mind", and therefore in a world with over six billion minds (and climbing), civilization is a miracle. Cultural and moral relativism define cognitive functions (relativily speaking). So, in short, YES, there is more than one REALITY. Try counting them... just for fun.

SimonJester:
"Are you saying that reality doesn’t matter because we can shape it as we see fit?"

sourmonkey:
No, I'm saying we tend to threaten or destroy what DOES matter because we shape reality as we see fit.

What DOES matter is this perpetual cycle called life on Earth and all the universal factors which maintain environmental stability favoring the existence of modern human civilization. Historically, war tends to stagnate things, and in the nuclear age, our ideological "short comings" ony threaten what we believe to be the universes most significant miracle.

We DO change the nature of reality. Technological civilization is the SYNTHETIC CREATION of the human mind. All the numbers and symbols which provide energy to the economy are synthetic creations of the human mind. The computer that I type into and my home encasing it are synthetic creations of the human mind. They have a ROOT in the physical, molecular universe but their existence is induced by the human creative mind.

What started as a dream became reality. Architecture an art, government and economy, science and airtravel. Hell, we even went to the moon, and sent robots to Mars.

In my interpretations of science, I find enough evidence to take it on faith that the earth HAS ALWAYS CHANGED, is currently changing, and will continue to change. I find enough evidence to take it on faith that our precious human civilization depends on environmental stability. The limitations of our perspective prevent us from accurately forecasting the weather, never mind predict the consequences of climate change. I think we should take precautions, if only because our natural resources are diminishings despite population increases. Combine this with our love of war and ideological absolutism, and our prospects for a prosperous near future are dim.

SimonJester:
Hmmm… Fun stuff Sourmonkey, fun stuff. You’re losing me. If our goal is to understand reality, then it must adhere to some fixed rules – rules that do not change based on what you or I think they might be. Eons ago, people believed that there were no fixed rules, that no discernable patterns existed, that we owed our existence to the whims of the gods. We have since amassed enough evidence to demonstrate that patterns do indeed exist, and that certain rules will always apply, everywhere. It seems likely we will continue finding such evidence. You mentioned String Theory earlier – what is that, if not an attempt to determine the rules of a static reality at the most basic level?
Making pots and pans, carving out weapons, painting on walls, erecting temples and towers, manufacturing cars and computers, constructing virtual worlds – we take advantage of these regular patterns to do all these miraculous things – but we do not change reality in any fundamental way by doing so.

sourmonkey:
"No, I'm saying we tend to threaten or destroy what DOES matter because we shape reality as we see fit."

SimonJester:
There are two problems with this. First, you’re making a subjective morality judgment – “what matters”. What matters to whom, and more importantly – why? Why is “what matters” to you more important than “what matters” to me? Second, it is known that the world changes constantly. You and I even agree on this much. Life has survived earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardments by comets and asteroids and meteors, world wide floods, tidal waves, world wide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, and recurring ice ages. Life has survived all that, but it won’t survive humanity? Do you really have the conceit to believe we’re that powerful yet?

If our goal is to understand reality, then it must adhere to some fixed rules – rules that do not change based on what you or I think they might be.

sourmonkey:
Rules, like the speed of light, the force of gravity, or the orbit of electrons about a nucleus? These change too, but this is beside the point.

SimonJester:
"Eons ago, people believed that there were no fixed rules, that no discernable patterns existed, that we owed our existence to the whims of the gods"

sourmonkey:
These people recognized astronomical patterns, which probably gave them the ability to settle into society, create crops and gods, and lay down the law.

Still, this is beside the point.

Ah, so here's the problem. It's a problem of definition. for example:

SimonJester:
"...but we do not change reality in any fundamental way by doing so."

sourmonkey:
how do you define reality? how do you define it in a fundamental way?

All of the things you listed were created by the human mind. How is it that we don't change reality? All of the things you listed were synthesized by human hands. How is it that we don't change reality? All of the things you listed affect the lives of the humans that interact with them. The invention of the internal combustion engine transformed the human family, the human environment, and the human community in ways we're still trying to comprehend. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not denying the raw physics of the universe, which is what I think you're missing me on. All I'm saying is that we are still learning. Our theories are evolving. Our understanding of the universe and the significance of our life on Earth is also evolving. Change is everpresent, and there is so much more to learn.

The human reality is subjective. There, like that better?

I'll conclude this chapter by asking you, good reader, "how do YOU define reality?"