... I'm wholly in agreement with you in that what are referenced in science are testable models, models that can change with new data. I am still confused by your use of "objective." Maybe I should ask, what do you think is the relationship between the models and what the models are about? I think we agree that the model is not the reality. Nonetheless, the models are about reality, right? And, reality is the "object." So, "objective" references the reality, whatever that may be, not the models. Is that right? I am inclined to think you will disagree.
What we mean by 'reality' is a model.
I'm going to interpret your core inquiry as being more about what is objective vs what is subjective:
I think its fair to say this all starts with normal minds observing both regularities and irregularities in what we perceive. That's pretty much an observed fact and what motivates the terms
'objective' and
'subjective'. The normal way our minds make sense of this fact, is we associate that which is
'objective' with what exists independently from us, and that which is
'subjective', depends on our minds.
The problem, of course, is that the line between objective and subjective here is,
itself, a model, which is easily found to break down if you simply push it far enough .. for example: is the idea that there are independent electrons in each atom an
objective truth, or a
subjective way of thinking? (Aside: more advanced data driven explanations about atoms simply requires abandonment of the notion of the existence of
individual electrons).
So, I agree, this is the central issue .. any attempt to put a concept of mind independent 'objects' into our mind-dependent models, faces the problem of breaking down when you try to decide which parts are mind independent, and which parts aren't. The very concept of mind dependence vs. mind independence is itself, a mind dependent concept, and this is easy to demonstrate.
Another common approach is to take a definition, like one I found on a Google search for 'objective reality':
'The objective reality is the collection of things we are sure exist independently of us'.
Whilst dictionary definitions are always a useful starting point, unfortunately definitions always have to be very vague and very inclusive of many different things. That's how they are designed, because they are not equipped with
context, whereas
meaning is
always contextual. Instead of blindly adhering to dictionary definitions, we need to do the work of deciding what we
mean when we use a word, and watch for internal inconsistencies .. and they abound in dictionary definitions .. there's usually always circularities there too .. examples include, when you look for definitions of 'reality', you find things like 'reality is everything that exists', and then you look up 'exist' and get 'have objective reality', and so forth. The fact is, definitions can never tell you what things are, and they can also never tell you what you mean when you use a word. They only tell you what many people
tend to mean in various situations, but there is a real danger of creating a kind of illusion of understanding when real understanding requires a whole lot more work than looking up a definition.
What's more, it should be very obvious the internal inconsistency of saying
'things we are sure exist independently of us'. Who is sure? How do we tell we are sure? .. and how is that independent of us? I have to wonder if people even look at what they are saying sometimes. But yes, the common poor definitions we find involving 'reality' are ripe with such clear inconsistencies, there is a complete lack of introspection on the topic.
There exists a fundamental logical inconsistency in the very idea that you can call 'mind independence' an aspect of a model that requires your mind to understand. Whenever you put that in as a feature of a model, all I have to do is ask 'can different minds mean something different about whatever it is that you are putting in your model that you are calling mind independent?' If you say 'no', I'll show your claim fails tests. If you say 'yes', then I'll ask, 'if different minds can include that feature differently, could a mind choose not to include it at all, and how is your model any testably different?'
So these two flaws in imagining that a mind independent component can be put into a testable model boil down to, what aspects you think are mind dependent vs mind independent, will always require enforcing an artificial line in the sand between what parts are mind independent, and that line will fall apart when dug into, (like the line in the sand we call 'the surface of the Earth') .. And moreover, if you require complete mind independence for any aspect of your model, that aspect can simply be left out and the model isn't any different for testing purposes. One can always choose to
believe an aspect of a model that is not testable and is not even logically consistent, because belief follows different rules from logic and science.
public hermit said:
So, this observation has been around for awhile. We can think of Kant's distinction between the noumena (i.e. the thing in itself) and phenomenon (i.e. the thing as perceived by us). We have access to the phenomenon, but not the noumena. Nonetheless, the one depends on the other. Kant never denied the reality of the noumena, but only that we cannot know it except as perceived. What I hear you saying is the noumena doesn't even exist. In this sense, what you're saying sounds like idealism in the Berkeleyan sense, i.e. all that exists are minds.
No .. that wouldn't be science .. that would be a philosophically based belief. Science can't rule out things which it cannot test. I'm simply shifting the emphasis of this entire conversation back to its basis in objectively tested results. This requires leaving the question of 'reality
not existing independently from us',
entirely open, (as an unknown), because there's nothing to say beyond people's belief based opinions.
This is also what separates Solipsism from the notion I'm putting forward.
public hermit said:
Given your position, it seems the distinction between objective and subjective collapses. Maybe one way to avoid that is to say, that which is objective is that which achieves widespread intersubjective agreement, via verifiability through testing, observation (whatever that means), etc.
Yep .. pretty much .. bit the agreement is amongst scientific thinkers .. and I'd rename that science's 'Objective Reality'. Beliefs, faiths, delusional thinking etc, are still capable of giving a model of reality their particular meanings .. but those meanings of 'reality' are not science's meanings because they aren't testable via the scientific method. They are still mind dependent realities though .. (and not independent of those minds).
public hermit said:
By the way, please don't take my comments as derogatory or dismissive in any way. I am truly curious and in some way want to agree with you, but I want to make sure I understand. Also, given the role of the mind as you see it, are you sympathetic to pansychism? Why or why not?
I suspect Strawson's philosophical ideas are closer to the philosophy of science .. but his (or someone else's) using them to rule out out other untestable notions, places them squarely in the philosophy bucket .. and is not scientific thinking.