“Physical stuff” can’t do this and that - a false Dichotomy

So there really is an objective reality as long as you define that as being strictly from the human perspective. But naive realism is invalid because there is no objective reality from an ultimate God-like perspective of absolutely all of reality, not just what is perceived and interacted with by humans.

I'm not sure I understand the bold. Are you saying that reality is ultimately subjective, in a certain Idealist way?

Or that God (whether we think of "God" as a personal being on impersonal awareness) is the final determiner of reality, so it's not "objective" in the sense of existing without God's will?

I'm not sure I understand the bold. Are you saying that reality is ultimately subjective, in a certain Idealist way?

Or that God (whether we think of "God" as a personal being on impersonal awareness) is the final determiner of reality, so it's not "objective" in the sense of existing without God's will?

No. I see this as there being a one ultimate humanly unknowable Reality, which is ultimately not subjective but is objective and observable and manipulatable by ultimate Spirit or what we think of as God. This ultimate Reality is complicated - it has many levels or dimensions of existence and different properties depending on level. Human beings directly perceive and interact only with one level (our objective physical reality) which has certain limited aspects of that ultimate Reality. Just like the fact that humans directly live in a physical world, not the absolutely known to exist at the same time realm of subatomic particles and quantum mechanical relations that underlies and forms the humanly observed and experienced world. 

I don't go along with your second suggestion regarding God's will.

I don't go along with your second suggestion regarding God's will.

That might be a slight English fail on my part, I actually meant to say what you said ->

I see this as there being a one ultimate humanly unknowable Reality, which is ultimately not subjective but is objective and observable and manipulatable by ultimate Spirit or what we think of as God.

I think that this issue of whether there is an objective reality has different answers when viewed at two radically different levels of perspective and experience.

Objective reality is understood to be the idea that things in the world exist independently of any conscious awareness of it, and can be verified by others.

From the human perspective of experience and activity in the physical world, there absolutely, definitely, is a very real objective reality. It's the way the world actually works at the human scale of sizes and distances. When you push something, it structurally and inertially always pushes back, when you kick a rock you get a sore foot and ankle, etc. Our entire high technology is designed and works very successfully on this assumption.

And yet, have we not only ever know of this shared, objective reality through our human lens? Yes, our assumptions may work, but that's because we've tested our observations on how things work. They do not require knowledge of anything else.

Naive realism assumes that this level of objective reality is all there is.

Can't fault the naive realist for it, not when Scientism has been thoroughly drummed into their heads by Materialist college professors. The irritating thing is how smug many of them are, and how closed-minded they are about the possibility that they are incorrect. When their logic seems to go as far as "rock hurts foot, so rock really real", it's a little saddening. Could also be that they think they're too intelligent to possibly be wrong ~ the Dunning-Kruger Effect is always fun... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Maybe the only solution is a strong, inexplicable spiritual experience that shatters the walls of their existing worldview. But, not all are ready to handle such a thing ~ when it threatens their entire identity, it is psychologically safer to pretend the threatening evidence isn't really there.

Though... I've wondered how the naive realist can possibly justify the existence of hallucinations in their worldview... cognitive dissonance, I suppose.

But we know from philosophical reasoning that the true underlying nature of ultimate reality is alien, humanly unknowable, and cannot be directly perceived or interacted with by humans. From that perspective there is (ultimately) no objective reality.

I think it depends... does that ultimate reality have insight into the realities within it, the consciousnesses and minds that pervade it? If a shared reality exists among those within the non-ultimate reality, and the non-ultimate reality is a subset of the ultimate reality, then perhaps the shared, objective reality does actually exist in a sense.

So there really is an objective reality as long as you define that as being strictly from the human perspective. But naive realism is invalid because there is no objective reality from an ultimate God-like perspective of absolutely all of reality, not just what is perceived and interacted with by humans.

From the perspective of the creators / custodians / what-have-you of this physical universe, this reality is objective within itself, as that is its nature, perhaps as designed. We possess... avatars, I guess, for lack of a better word, and interact with each other through the shared medium of this physical universe.

From an ultimate perspective, this is also true ~ but also not, as the God-like perspective perceives all of the perspectives simultaneously.

Again, I am reminded of a fractal... though I don't fully understand how it relates. But maybe that's the struggle of trying to comprehend an ultimate reality from one that is decidedly not-so.

Thanks, Brian.

My objective measuring tool is that I was not conscious of the trees while I was away. So something non-conscious is involved. Isn't it fair to call that thing "objective," even if it's my own memory?

~~ Paul

It's a difficult  one,  but I would say technically no because your subjective experience is still subjective.  Even in a dream, everything seems logical and contiguous until you wake up and remember how absurd and unconnected the dream was, so your experience of things seemingly being logical and contiguous is not objective.  There are people who trust their memories so strongly that when they have remembered something wrong, they believe it is reality that has changed.   I have had some startlingly convincing false memories in my life.  Can you really trust that you remembered that tree or its placement correctly?  Even a ruler is a subjective experience, we just trust it because we cannot do otherwise.  If we don't take certain realities as being objective, we will simply stop being able to function but that doesn't mean that they really are objective.

Thanks, Brian.

My objective measuring tool is that I was not conscious of the trees while I was away. So something non-conscious is involved. Isn't it fair to call that thing "objective," even if it's my own memory?

~~ Paul

This is about the metaphysical interpretation of quantum superposition, not how your five senses allows you to perceive the world.

Can't fault the naive realist for it, not when Scientism has been thoroughly drummed into their heads by Materialist college professors. The irritating thing is how smug many of them are, and how closed-minded they are about the possibility that they are incorrect. When their logic seems to go as far as "rock hurts foot, so rock really real", it's a little saddening. Could also be that they think they're too intelligent to possibly be wrong ~ the Dunning-Kruger Effect is always fun... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

I'm a bit confused as to the way Naive Realist is being used here, given that AFAIK most Materialists would accept their brains are constructing reality to overlay the world with qualia. [Not endorsing production of mind from mindless matter, just speaking to how they see it.]

I do recall Searle arguing in favor of Naive Realism, so I guess that's the (potentially very large) subset of Materialists who think the world presented to us by the brain's reconstruction is very close to what's actually out there with the only parts "left out" being stuff like fields.

Maybe the only solution is a strong, inexplicable spiritual experience that shatters the walls of their existing worldview. But, not all are ready to handle such a thing ~ when it threatens their entire identity, it is psychologically safer to pretend the threatening evidence isn't really there.

I suspect we aren't getting an honest account of how many "skeptics" have had these experiences. There seemed to be more admission when Shermer talked about his paranormal experience, but that seems to been a very small window of limited honesty/openness.

Given the pseudo-skeptics have basically lost the public unclear if it matters that much now.

It's a difficult  one,  but I would say technically no because your subjective experience is still subjective.  Even in a dream, everything seems logical and contiguous until you wake up and remember how absurd and unconnected the dream was, so your experience of things seemingly being logical and contiguous is not objective.  There are people who trust their memories so strongly that when they have remembered something wrong, they believe it is reality that has changed.   I have had some startlingly convincing false memories in my life.  Can you really trust that you remembered that tree or its placement correctly?  Even a ruler is a subjective experience, we just trust it because we cannot do otherwise.  If we don't take certain realities as being objective, we will simply stop being able to function but that doesn't mean that they really are objective.

I'm not talking about the experience of the memory of the trees when I return. I'm talking about the trees themselves. Granted, yes, my perception of them is subjective, as is my perception of the memory when I recall them. But what about the trees?

Perhaps there are actual "physical" trees. Perhaps there aren't any, but just my personal memory of my prior subjective conjuring of them. Perhaps there is some sort of external cosmic memory. But all those sources of trees are nonconscious, so I'm tempted to call them objective.

~~ Paul