can you disprove my logic regarding subjective and objective reality???

Question

in order for us to have a subjective reality. there must be something there in order to have a subjective reality. because if there isnt, then what is it that we base our ideas on?? and what is it that we perceive?? and if there is no objective reality then how is it that we created colors, sounds, touch, and smell if we have had no experience prior to them?? think of someone being born in a sensory deprivation tank, he would have no concept of a color so how could he create an illusion which consists of them along with the other senses??

but without subjective reality then there can be no objective reality. because if we dont have perceptions then there can be no objective reality to perceive.


but in general objective reality exists right?

Answer 1

there is objective reality when Person A agrees with Person B that the dog is running.

Most of the time, everything is subjective because each person has a different perspective in the world. Only when people agree or agree to disagree does it become objective.

Example of objective reality would be in the health field. Doctors/nurses/specialists make diagnostic tests and see what the symptoms and problems could be.

Answer 2

The Upanishads describe several components of mind:

(1) Ahamkaara (Self-sense): The need that "I have to
survive" originates here. It is common to all living
beings including the one celled.

(2) Chitta (Emotion): Sub-conscious instincts like "I
am hungry", "I am thirsty", and "I have to sleep"
originate here. Sexual instincts for continuation of
the spieces are connected with it. It is connected
with objective perception by the senses.

(3) Manas (Reason): It deals with rational thinking,
knowing, practical possibilities and alternatives.
Conscious thoughts of will power like "I have to do
this", "I do not want to do this", "I can not tolerate
this" originate here. It is connectd with subjective
analysis of the information received by the senses.

(4) Buddhi (Intellect): Deliberation of the pros and
cons (or good and bad) using discrimination to
determine on a subject is it's chief characteristic.
It deals with higher knowledge, wisdom and
philosophy.

Using the reason and logic of Manas center in all our
mental activities appears to be highly scientific. Are
there any arguments against it? Yes.

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a
theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory. When a person cannot determine
whether an object is this or that, or whether to
perform a particular action or not, the Manas is said
to be functioning dominantly. The Buddhi center does
this difficult job of going beyond the problem of
logic to know a higher truth.

There is nothing like objective reality which is agreed
by all. If you view the truth from one angle, others may
view the same from a different angle. Past experience
of each person leads to personal conclusions.

A short story of three blind men is told in India. One
day, they happened to meet a domestic elephant. One
blind man goes towards the hind part of the animal and
says " the animal has a broom like tail, what is this
animal? ". The other two said that they do not know.
Another blind man goes to the middle part and says "
the animal has legs like big pillars, what is this
animal? ". The other two said that they do not know.
The third blind man goes to the front part and says "
the animal has a big snake like nose, what is this
animal? ". The other two said that they do not know.

Answer 3

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. Objective reality is how things really are. (no amt of deprivation will change reality, except to the deprived) Although it is possible to perceive objectively, we cannot take in the totality of reality and say anything about it; (when a description takes shape it generally includes the environment the thing is in) we can only point to some of its characteristics. So whenever we explore reality in any specific manner, we have to leave out some things. For example, when you describe an orange, you cannot say anything about its totality. You have to talk about its color or its taste or its shape. If you want your description to encompass the whole thing -- its color, shape, and taste all together -- you can only say, "orange." It is the same with objective reality. If you want to say anything about it, you have to focus on its specific characteristics. (Facets of Unity, pg 206) So is the thing no longer objective in itself? Is it totally subjective? Or some combination?

The only thing I can think of to add is this; in Quantum Mechanics science has discovered one is able to measure both the movement and the size of a quantum molocule but not at the same time. As soon as the mole is excited into movement it is changed by the very nature of the movement. So things can be linked AND seperate at the same time, physically. Why can't it be similar in a mental capacity?

Answer 4

Interesting, However I must now ask a question of my own,

If a tree falls in the woods,and no one is aaround to hear it, does it make a sound?

If we us your topic on this we can assume that yes indeed it does make a sound, But if we have no perceptions, then it would not, so therefor since there is no-one around to hear it it does not make a sound, but since we all know that it would indeed make a sound whether or not someone was there to hear it, we assume naturally that it did make a sound.

If I were born deaf blind And numb, I would not be able to feel, hear or see, However that would not stop me from using my mind to visualize what I was thinking about, even if I had never seen it, although my ears wouldnt function nothing would stop e from hearing sounds in my mind, if I couldnt feel I could imagine what it felt like under my fingers, etc etc, there are many different aspects to this kind of thinking.

Mine is personally that objective reality is just like alternate reality, it is not disproven, but it is not proven either.

Answer 5

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative; what other way is there to know other.