In this thread -- http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7224285#Post7224285 -- which started out as a critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy which she named "Objectivism", Diploid and myself had a fairly lengthy tangential exchange regarding the merits of the two great opposing metaphysical foundations -- Primacy of Existence vs Primacy of Consciousness. We had both just about agreed to pack it in when Trepiodge posted this:
Quote:
Phred, can you comment on the idea that by the act of observing, one participates in the alteration of what one is observing. In other words, that no matter how 'objective' one may wish to be in discerning the nature of the universe, the act of observation creates an undeniable change.
If my eyes catch light waves and my nervous system interprets the waves, isn't my system of observation 1)altering the course and/or nature of the waves and hence altering the nature of the reality I am attempting to observe and objectively categorize and 2)being somewhat selective in which frequencies it catches and interprets and 3)relying on assumptions that the interpretations of the waves' representation of nature is accurate even though comparisons (for objectivity's sake) are done against similarly subjective observations and 4) subject to signal loss or alteration when sampling and processing for categorization and 5)relying on subjective categorization of discrete 'components' of reality. (The same concepts could of course, be applied to any instrument which is employed in attempts to observe nature).
Do we or do we not inadvertently (or purposefully) create subjective conditions in order to observe and build models of the universe? Since we are limited in our tools of observation, our tools alter the reality we attempt to observe, and our models are limited by our choices of what to observe and categorize, is it not (to a certain extent) a leap of faith to claim objectivity? Isn't it best to admit that what we have, even in the most rigorous scientific or philosophical system, is but an approximation of what we hope is an objective model of a perceivable reality?
I thought it best to address it in a new thread rather than drag the first one further off into the weeds, so here we go:
Quote:
Phred, can you comment on the idea that by the act of observing, one participates in the alteration of what one is observing. In other words, that no matter how 'objective' one may wish to be in discerning the nature of the universe, the act of observation creates an undeniable change.
By merely observing (and doing nothing more than observing), I (or you or anyone else) do not necessarily alter that which is observed. I can stand out under the night sky and observe a faint star. That star is changed not a whit by my observation of it. It won't shine any brighter due to my observation, nor will it burn out any sooner, nor will its orbital path change, etc. That star is completely indifferent to my observation, and will behave identically whether I look at it or look at the star next to it. It makes no difference to the star whether the human whose face is turned towards it has his eyes open or closed, or even has no eyes at all.
Quote:
If my eyes catch light waves and my nervous system interprets the waves, isn't my system of observation 1)altering the course and/or nature of the waves and hence altering the nature of the reality I am attempting to observe and objectively categorize...
No. The thing is, you aren't observing light waves per se. You are observing the object from which photons are emitted (or reflected). The mechanism by which you observe a pebble at a distance involves photons being reflected from it which end up impacting your retina, true. If no photons at the wavelengths you are capable of perceiving happen to be bouncing off that pebble, you have no way of seeing it. But a pebble remains a pebble whether the photons bouncing off it are eventually stopped by a sheet of lead, a human retina, or nothing at all.
Quote:
... and 2)being somewhat selective in which frequencies it catches and interprets...
This means nothing more than that your unaided grasp at a distance of the attributes possessed by that pebble is incomplete. The fact that you cannot directly perceive (for example) ultraviolet doesn't necessarily mean that the pebble doesn't reflect ultraviolet. But it doesn't mean that just because it does reflect ultraviolet it doesn't reflect visible light as well. Imagine a mutant human incapable of directly perceiving photons less energetic than ultraviolet, but capable of seeing deep into the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. He will also be capable of observing that same pebble if he stands right next to you. The "colors" he assigns to it will be different than the colors you assign to it, but that's all. Both of you will be able to truthfully say "That pebble is about five centimeters in diameter and is resting on the ground about two meters from the water's edge, and is closer to tetrahedral in shape than it is to spherical," etc. etc.
Quote:
...and 3)relying on assumptions that the interpretations of the waves' representation of nature is accurate even though comparisons (for objectivity's sake) are done against similarly subjective observations...
One of the results of your visual observation of that pebble is that it allows you to locate it spatially. If your visual observation tells you it is within your reach, and you stretch out your arm and pick it up, then your observation is objectively accurate, no? If your visual observation tells you it is almost spherical, and you pick it up and feel it and it turns out to be almost spherical, your observation was objectively correct, no?
Can your unaided visual observation tell you all there is to know about that pebble? Of course not. So what?
Quote:
...and 4) subject to signal loss or alteration when sampling and processing for categorization ...
Same answer. The fact that any single sense cannot convey to you every possible attribute of that pebble does not invalidate your visual observations of it. If it is very foggy (signal loss) then you will know less about it by merely looking at it than you would if the air between you and it was crystalline, yes. But so what? Same thing if the pebble is on the bed of a shallow stream and refraction leads you initially to believe it is slightly to the side of where it really is (alteration). But if you were to stick your head under the water refraction is negated and once again you can accurately locate it through sight alone.
Quote:
... and 5)relying on subjective categorization of discrete 'components' of reality. (The same concepts could of course, be applied to any instrument which is employed in attempts to observe nature).
By this I presume you refer to the human epistemological method of grouping existents into categories? i.e. thinking of both a sparrow and a starling as a "bird"? If so, I am missing your point. Can you rephrase this?
Quote:
Do we or do we not inadvertently (or purposefully) create subjective conditions in order to observe and build models of the universe?
You've lost me here. I don't understand what you are asking. Can you rephrase?
Quote:
Since we are limited in our tools of observation, our tools alter the reality we attempt to observe...
But they don't necessarily do that. A cyclotron and a cloud chamber do alter the paths of the subatomic particles we attempt to observe, but a telescope doesn't change the star it's pointed at. An amplified microphone doesn't change the mosquito it is listening to.
Quote:
...and our models are limited by our choices of what to observe and categorize...
A model is not reality. I don't need a model of a tree in order to observe a tree.
Quote:
... is it not (to a certain extent) a leap of faith to claim objectivity?
No.
Quote:
Isn't it best to admit that what we have, even in the most rigorous scientific or philosophical system, is but an approximation of what we hope is an objective model of a perceivable reality?
Yes. What's your point? Of course it is impossible to know everything there is to know about every single entity I observe, or even about any single entity I observe. Nonetheless, the insect I observe on the floor at my feet which I shook off my shirt after walking my dog through a wooded area is in fact an insect, and any sighted (as opposed to blind) human with sufficient life experience sitting close to me as I type this reply will agree with me that it is an insect. The chair in which I sit is a chair, not a unicycle.
Are you arguing that since we cannot know everything (and it is obvious we can't) we can know nothing?
Phred
--------------------
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Phred 
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl 
Edit 
Reply 
Epigallo
1 2 all )
Sclorch
sleepy
Cognitive_Shift
the_phoenix
Icelander