Man as the measure of the immeasurable

a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

I'm right there with you on that one.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

It’s honestly more than just a grain of salt; it’s the whole damn seasoning of life itself. 🙂 When it comes to actually making an impact on the lives of those who sit down and read this stuff, I honestly couldn't ask for anything more.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

It changes things just enough to help me wrap my head around the concept, though I suppose it mostly just ends up opening up a whole new set of questions for me to wrestle with.

Honestly, I don't really see why anyone would feel threatened by a strong argument, because if I’m actually looking at something as a valid point that challenges my current way of thinking, then it’s essentially reshaping my own perspective, so there's no reason to feel like it's an attack. If it truly felt like a threat to me personally, then it wouldn't be a good argument worth considering in the first place—at least, that's how I make sense of it.

What even is this whole idea of having a "personal identity" anyway? I find myself sitting here, staring at the wall and wondering if there’s actually a core version of me somewhere underneath all these layers of habits and social expectations, or if we’re all just a collection of things we’ve picked up from the people around us. It feels like such a heavy, daunting concept to wrap my head around, especially when you realize how much of who you think you are might just be a reaction to the world, but I can't help but feel like there has to be something more substantial than that, something real and unchanging buried deep down inside. 🙄 I find myself constantly terrified of everything that feels like "too much"—all those extra layers and mental clutter that I end up generating myself, only to have them pile up until my vision gets completely clouded. I’m always fighting against this overwhelming excess, trying to strip away the noise, yet somehow I always fail because I just end up taking whatever is left over and twisting it into yet another unnecessary burden.

And once you've finally managed to address all of that, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at this too:
Is there actually a single concept of reality that hasn't been met with some demand for "undeniable proof" from the people championing it, and honestly, is there even one idea left standing that hasn't been torn down or at least aggressively challenged by a counter-argument?

I honestly don't know, there probably isn't one, though I suppose if there were, at least it wouldn't be under constant dispute.

What’s even the point of chasing after some grand, objective truth when, at the end of the day, the only thing we actually walk away with is a shift in our own subjective perspective? Or maybe—and I might be overthinking this one—maybe that’s actually the whole damn point of the search in the first place? 😉

Maybe it’s just that she never actually reaches an end, and honestly, as long as we keep searching—really digging for that objective truth while simultaneously chasing our own subjective feelings by diving headfirst into life—we’re just constantly pushing our own horizon further out, always reaching for just a little bit more.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Your question actually carries this underlying assumption that we view perception as unreliable, which I don't think is a universal truth. Personally, I see perception as arbitrary and imperfect—kind of a messy affair—but since it’s really all we have to work with, I don't spend too much energy stressing over it. Think about the electromagnetic spectrum; even with all our high-tech sensors, we're barely tapping into 5% of what's actually out there. Any interpretation or perception based on just 5% of reality is inherently arbitrary, built upon a mountain of assumptions.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Because it’s a convenient way for a small group claiming "objective" status to convince the "subjective" majority that it’s in their best interest to let those "objectivists" make decisions for them. In short, they manufacture a fiction of authority, and authority is the bedrock of any kind of rule. Weapons, religious texts, science... they're all tools used to build that sense of authority.

Quote:table>

Lawrence Robinson5 says: Why do we need (if we need it at all—and I think we all do from time to time) external validation of our rights—when in the end, it doesn't matter? You live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own will, your own effort, and your own strength, regardless of what anyone tells you.

Because with my flawed perception—as limited as it is—it’s easy to miss certain angles of any given "problem." Engaging in discussion often gives me that much-needed boost in perspective. On the flip side, if an idea is actually solid, and people I respect for their insight agree with it, that idea gains credibility, allowing me to use it as a stepping stone for the next level of complex thought.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Honestly? No. I write about life—not necessarily how I'm performing it. We all have a general idea of what an "ideal" existence looks like, but let's be real: ideologies don't actually lead anyone anywhere. For me, everything needs to have some sort of practical utility, and that includes philosophy.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

I know for a fact that what others write shifts my own reality. I’d like to assume I'm not the only one—that my own words occasionally tilt someone else's perspective, too. Besides, what would my entire worldview even look like without the insights others have shared about it? These days, being a philosopher is almost "too easy" thanks to the internet and instant access to data. Someone drops an author's name and a book title, and I can spend my entire night reading up on the subject until I get it.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

If there's one thing I love, it's hearing an argument that forces me to completely dismantle and rebuild my interpretation of the world. I remember the first time I heard the claim that the world isn't made of matter, but of words. It took me over a year to truly wrap my head around the truth of that statement because—rightfully enough—the author didn't provide any immediate arguments to back it up. It's easy to dismiss a claim like that as pure nonsense, but when someone delivers a brilliant lecture and then drops a "hook" like that at the very end, I find myself unable to resist swallowing it whole.

And since identity itself is just a collection of words... no, I'm not afraid of words. 🙂

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Well, what else am I supposed to do with this magnifying glass of consciousness we call "focus," and this linguistic structure that is so perfectly suited for rambling about whatever is under the lens?

What you focus on, you will become... or so Buddha says. 😉

Edward Flores4 said:Your question actually carries this underlying assumption that we view perception as unreliable, which I don't think is a universal truth. Personally, I see perception as arbitrary and imperfect—kind of a messy affair—but since it’s really all we have to work with, I don't spend too much energy stressing over it. Think about the electromagnetic spectrum; even with all our high-tech sensors, we're barely tapping into 5% of what's actually out there. Any interpretation or perception based on just 5% of reality is inherently arbitrary, built upon a mountain of assumptions.

Because it’s a convenient way for a small group claiming "objective" status to convince the "subjective" majority that it’s in their best interest to let those "objectivists" make decisions for them. In short, they manufacture a fiction of authority, and authority is the bedrock of any kind of rule. Weapons, religious texts, science... they're all tools used to build that sense of authority.

Quote:table>

Lawrence Robinson5 says: Why do we need (if we need it at all—and I think we all do from time to time) external validation of our rights—when in the end, it doesn't matter? You live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own will, your own effort, and your own strength, regardless of what anyone tells you.

Because with my flawed perception—as limited as it is—it’s easy to miss certain angles of any given "problem." Engaging in discussion often gives me that much-needed boost in perspective. On the flip side, if an idea is actually solid, and people I respect for their insight agree with it, that idea gains credibility, allowing me to use it as a stepping stone for the next level of complex thought.

Honestly? No. I write about life—not necessarily how I'm performing it. We all have a general idea of what an "ideal" existence looks like, but let's be real: ideologies don't actually lead anyone anywhere. For me, everything needs to have some sort of practical utility, and that includes philosophy.

I know for a fact that what others write shifts my own reality. I’d like to assume I'm not the only one—that my own words occasionally tilt someone else's perspective, too. Besides, what would my entire worldview even look like without the insights others have shared about it? These days, being a philosopher is almost "too easy" thanks to the internet and instant access to data. Someone drops an author's name and a book title, and I can spend my entire night reading up on the subject until I get it.

If there's one thing I love, it's hearing an argument that forces me to completely dismantle and rebuild my interpretation of the world. I remember the first time I heard the claim that the world isn't made of matter, but of words. It took me over a year to truly wrap my head around the truth of that statement because—rightfully enough—the author didn't provide any immediate arguments to back it up. It's easy to dismiss a claim like that as pure nonsense, but when someone delivers a brilliant lecture and then drops a "hook" like that at the very end, I find myself unable to resist swallowing it whole.

And since identity itself is just a collection of words... no, I'm not afraid of words. 🙂

Well, what else am I supposed to do with this magnifying glass of consciousness we call "focus," and this linguistic structure that is so perfectly suited for rambling about whatever is under the lens?

What you focus on, you will become... or so Buddha says. 😉

Yeah, it does imply that. Just like what you mentioned regarding authority. But from where I'm sitting, it seems like we all fall for it without exception, no matter how hard we try to maintain a constructive, critical edge—maybe because we put too much stock in thousands of years of human progress... or maybe it's just all those deeply ingrained beliefs we've absorbed throughout our own lives.

The thing that always brings me back to center, though, is the simple fact that we will never possess—and never will possess—a better tool for perception and creation than the ones we already have. Perception itself isn't flawed; it's our interpretations of what we perceive that are imperfect. You see this clearly in that video you posted in another thread about creating advertisements... we don't need a more advanced sensory apparatus; we just need the practice to squeeze every bit of potential out of the one we've got. That practice is simply focusing on what is happening, right now. That's it. However, if we convince ourselves that isn't enough, we'll never actually reach that level on our own, and we'll spend our whole lives leaning on external crutches just to feel "better" in our own eyes.

I truly believe the communication we engage in serves that exact purpose: it shows us through experience what a member of our species (or even others, if you think about it—you can learn a massive amount from animals) is capable of when they truly pay attention. To me, that is Zen in action, and it's beautiful... that kind of communication can happen with a living person, through art, or even through a written record. Every so often, I think of Sherlock Holmes and his knack for observation and deduction: it isn't magic—it's just the constant sharpening of the tools we already possess.

In the beginning was the word? Yeah... in almost every mythology, creation begins with some kind of sound: in India, it's the rhythmic beat of a drum. Rhythm is vital as one of the two primal elements, while the second is thought paired with content—and those two quickly evolve into the more concrete frequencies we call physical reality.

And Buddha is right. The hardest part is ignoring everything the majority of people fixate on—and what happens on a collective level tells us exactly what that focus is—and then choosing to live according to what we want to believe. Faith is a constant, uphill struggle...

Does what you read actually shift your reality? Do you feel threatened—maybe even a little shaken—when you stumble upon a solid argument that completely dismantles your own position? Does your very sense of self feel at risk?

The literature I consume serves one primary purpose: broadening my perspective and exposing me to different viewpoints. These ideas either reinforce my existing stances or reshape them—but they do so on my own terms. I consider myself someone open to new insights; if they align with my perceptions, I’ll take them in. My identity isn't going to be compromised by something I choose to accept myself. If you catch my drift... it all comes down to how much we're willing to let in...

George Barnes3 said:Does what you read actually shift your reality? Do you feel threatened—maybe even a little shaken—when you stumble upon a solid argument that completely dismantles your own position? Does your very sense of self feel at risk?

The literature I consume serves one primary purpose: broadening my perspective and exposing me to different viewpoints. These ideas either reinforce my existing stances or reshape them—but they do so on my own terms. I consider myself someone open to new insights; if they align with my perceptions, I’ll take them in. My identity isn't going to be compromised by something I choose to accept myself. If you catch my drift... it all comes down to how much we're willing to let in...

I totally get where you're coming from, and I'm right there with you. The reason I even brought this up was mostly because I kept seeing people in other threads acting like their entire identity would be under fire just by considering a new way of thinking. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around how that works—especially given what my questions are aiming at—so I was really hoping for some more concrete takes on the whole thing.

It all ties back to how we perceive what we call "reality." If we look at it through this lens of "objectivity," then a human being is basically just a blade of grass waiting to be stepped on.
But if everything is primarily subjective, then suae quisque fortunae faber est.

The sheer amount of paranoia floating around in society tells me that way too many of us are clinging to that idea of objectivity; putting all our faith in a strictly scientific worldview has somehow bred this deep distrust in the individual. It’s not that I’m scared for myself—I can't honestly say I feel any fear at all. But man, it really burns me up to see an education system that actively encourages that mindset. I don't think it completely breaks a person, but it definitely makes them timid, which makes them perfect subjects for anyone looking to rule over others.
In other words, there isn't a massive leap between medieval dogma and the stuff we deal with today—except that modern dogma is packaged in a way that actually sounds convincing to people nowadays. And of course it is, otherwise it wouldn't have stuck so well. But at its core, it still goes against common sense. I can't help but stare in disbelief at the absurdity we fall into as a society, constantly preaching the importance of reason while refusing to actually use it the way we should.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

I can't speak for anyone else, but my own perspective changed recently. Since then, I see the world and reality through an entirely different lens. 🙂 Rather than letting this realization weigh me down or make me feel stuck, it has actually made me feel more vibrant and energetic. I now find myself free to wander and truly enjoy whatever happens to come my way. 🙂 I spent quite a while searching for something others insisted was real, though I couldn't tell if they were actually onto something. By that, I mean seeking that "ultimate realization"—the definitive answers to who we are, where we originated, and where we are headed. As for any other insights, they are naturally subjective, fleeting, and relative, existing only for a brief moment before they pass. 🙂

Why is there such widespread skepticism toward subjective impressions? It seems strange that we often grant more weight to a machine's perception than to our own.

I have previously commented on the topic of solipsism, but I believe subjectivity eventually negates itself. From a purely subjectivist standpoint, it becomes impossible to establish or assert anything with certainty. This is why we require an alternative perspective—one where we perceive ourselves and reality as distinct, independent entities. Only through this lens can we truly experience something and, consequently, categorize it as "knowledge." This view also acknowledges that there are many other beings and objects in existence beyond ourselves; by comparing our impressions of this reality, we strive to describe it more accurately. In fact, machines are often far better at perceiving and defining these impressions with greater objectivity than we are.

When did that occur? Everyone. Do people actually reach a consensus that something is 100% objectively true?

Has it always been this way? 😕 Since birth, some have naturally gravitated toward one another, operating under the assumption that if they exist as conscious beings, there must be similar beings living alongside them.

Why do we feel the need for external validation? I suspect we all go through this phase from time to time. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter, because we live by our own conclusions, our own convictions, and our own hard work. At the end of the day, you rely on your own strength, regardless of what anyone else tells you.

I am not entirely sure what this question is targeting. If we are discussing physical health, I need to consult a doctor to receive a professional diagnosis; I am not a medical professional, so I cannot treat myself—I simply know when I feel unwell. In those cases, I require external expertise to help me. If we are referring to personal philosophies and outlooks on life, there are times when I seek validation because I feel uncertain, and having someone offer support or a counterargument is helpful. However, if this refers to the viewpoints I share here, I do not post them merely to seek agreement, but because I find genuine pleasure in doing so. 🙂Regarding the influence of others, I don't exist in a vacuum. I am a product of everyone who has shaped me—my parents, friends, teachers, professors, books, movies, TV shows, and every person I have ever had a relationship with. Even now, you all play a part in shaping who I am. 🙂

do you actually live out what you write?

What I write is simply a snapshot of who I am at that exact moment. 🙂 Sometimes my views remain steady, and other times they shift by the very next day. When I look back at posts from three or four years ago, I find them funny, strange, silly, interesting, foreign, or uniquely mine. Occasionally, I find myself agreeing with my past self, while other times we are in total disagreement.

do you believe that what you write changes the reality of those who read it? yes, no, or sometimes? and if it's the latter, under what conditions?

I don't give it much thought. Honestly, I would prefer if it didn't change anything. I worry about exerting too much influence over people and the heavy responsibility that entails.

does what you read change your reality?

Sometimes.

do you feel threatened or intimidated when you encounter a strong argument that contradicts your own view?

Quite the opposite. 🙂 I find it exhilarating because it allows me to see reality from an entirely new perspective that I hadn't even considered before. It is just like reading a great book or having a conversation with an interesting person—anything that serves as inspiration.

do you ever fear for your own identity?

How could a change in my thoughts or beliefs ever truly threaten me personally? It is still me, just slightly different. Whether the change comes from you or something else doesn't matter. Change is inevitable. 🙂

is there any idea about reality that individuals advocating it throughout history haven't eventually failed to find "solid proof" for? And is there any single idea that hasn't been overturned, or at least challenged by an opposing view, up to this point?

I don't know.

What is the actual point of seeking objectivity, if all we ever truly achieve is a subjective internal shift? Or perhaps, isn't that precisely the goal?

It really depends on your perspective. If we hadn't pursued objective truths, we wouldn't have modern technology, medical breakthroughs, or any part of the world we recognize today. On the other hand, looking at discussions like this one, the aim might simply be our own personal growth. Or maybe not. Perhaps we’re just having a great time playing around with big ideas. 🙂

Love that title you used: 'man as the measurer of the immeasurable.'
Everything we see, feel, or know—it all gets filtered through our own lens because there’s nothing outside of us that we can actually experience. We aren't birds or a drop of water... we're just people, and we only perceive reality as humans.

Say we're standing in front of a field, and a buddy walks up and says, "this field is 10 square miles."
Who are we to claim that? Isn't that just a subjective take? What does that field actually have to do with the concept of "10 square miles"?

Humans invented units of measurement—we basically just decided to pick a standard (like the
meter) so we could make sense of distances. We didn't pull the meter out of thin air from some physical reality; we just picked a measure that works for us so we can
show ourselves
how far things are.
But even though that's a "subjective" idea, the measurement itself is objective since a meter is always a meter—it doesn't flip-flop between being two meters or half a meter.

How else would we grasp reality if not through our own context?
Some people call that kind of perception "subjective"—as if there’s some other way to experience the world besides our own senses.

Just to add to that bit about the meter...
Every single unit of measurement—everything we measure—happens within a context. And that context is simply the human being.
Anything invisible to the naked eye is just an extension of human perception. A microscope, an oscilloscope, a telescope... any gadget is just a byproduct of how we perceive things, not a denial of it. These tools exist because we need more knowledge to understand reality better.
If someone discovers a new particle tomorrow that's smaller than anything we've ever found, it'll only be possible because of the knowledge we've built up until now (which all starts with direct perception). It doesn't mean those particles weren't there before; it just means we didn't have the tools or the knowledge to be aware of them yet.Quote: living on this planet finally agree on what is 100% objectively real?

Lawrence Robinson5says: a few questions for the group: when did everyone

I don't really get this one. I mean, nobody's gonna argue when you drop an egg from the tenth floor and it shatters, right?
Maybe you mean most people have their own opinions on the world and don't necessarily agree with what seems obvious to you? I guess that's just life...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

I wouldn't go against my own knowledge or logic just to please someone else—doesn't seem worth it. But when you stumble upon someone who actually sees things the way you do, it feels pretty good. Like a sense of connection or belonging... without being dependent on it.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Doing my best...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

It’s tough to influence someone just because you want to—people gotta be open to new ideas first. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother writing if I didn't think there was a chance...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

I figure there's only one reality, not just my version of it 😉
If I hit an argument that calls me out, I just assume the flaw is in my own thinking—something I need to fix. Happens pretty often, really... doesn't scare me or anything. I just take it in stride. People make mistakes all the time, so it's not like it's some personal failing I should be worried about...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Like I've said a bunch of times before—for anyone who missed my old posts—I believe reality is objective. Humans are part of that reality, and we can't just wish it away with our thoughts or whatever. My whole stance is based on Objectivism...

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Maybe the intro to this post actually hits the nail on the head—humans experience reality through their own senses, and there isn't any other way to do it. Reality doesn't care how we label things just to make our lives easier, and it definitely doesn't care whether we choose to accept being a part of it or not.
Saying humans are subjective—just because we perceive things through the only lens available to us—doesn't mean we can't have objective observations.
If a person accepts that they're just one piece of a reality they can't control by sheer willpower, and if they actually respect the laws of logic... then yeah, their perception can be objective.

fadedbison17 said:Love that title you used: 'man as the measurer of the immeasurable.'
Everything we see, feel, or know—it all gets filtered through our own lens because there’s nothing outside of us that we can actually experience. We aren't birds or a drop of water... we're just people, and we only perceive reality as humans.

Say we're standing in front of a field, and a buddy walks up and says, "this field is 10 square miles."
Who are we to claim that? Isn't that just a subjective take? What does that field actually have to do with the concept of "10 square miles"?

Humans invented units of measurement—we basically just decided to pick a standard (like the
meter) so we could make sense of distances. We didn't pull the meter out of thin air from some physical reality; we just picked a measure that works for us so we can
show ourselves
how far things are.
But even though that's a "subjective" idea, the measurement itself is objective since a meter is always a meter—it doesn't flip-flop between being two meters or half a meter.

How else would we grasp reality if not through our own context?
Some people call that kind of perception "subjective"—as if there’s some other way to experience the world besides our own senses.

Just to add to that bit about the meter...
Every single unit of measurement—everything we measure—happens within a context. And that context is simply the human being.
Anything invisible to the naked eye is just an extension of human perception. A microscope, an oscilloscope, a telescope... any gadget is just a byproduct of how we perceive things, not a denial of it. These tools exist because we need more knowledge to understand reality better.
If someone discovers a new particle tomorrow that's smaller than anything we've ever found, it'll only be possible because of the knowledge we've built up until now (which all starts with direct perception). It doesn't mean those particles weren't there before; it just means we didn't have the tools or the knowledge to be aware of them yet.Quote: living on this planet finally agree on what is 100% objectively real?

Lawrence Robinson5says: a few questions for the group: when did everyone

I don't really get this one. I mean, nobody's gonna argue when you drop an egg from the tenth floor and it shatters, right?
Maybe you mean most people have their own opinions on the world and don't necessarily agree with what seems obvious to you? I guess that's just life...

I wouldn't go against my own knowledge or logic just to please someone else—doesn't seem worth it. But when you stumble upon someone who actually sees things the way you do, it feels pretty good. Like a sense of connection or belonging... without being dependent on it.

Doing my best...

It’s tough to influence someone just because you want to—people gotta be open to new ideas first. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother writing if I didn't think there was a chance...

I figure there's only one reality, not just my version of it 😉
If I hit an argument that calls me out, I just assume the flaw is in my own thinking—something I need to fix. Happens pretty often, really... doesn't scare me or anything. I just take it in stride. People make mistakes all the time, so it's not like it's some personal failing I should be worried about...

Like I've said a bunch of times before—for anyone who missed my old posts—I believe reality is objective. Humans are part of that reality, and we can't just wish it away with our thoughts or whatever. My whole stance is based on Objectivism...

Maybe the intro to this post actually hits the nail on the head—humans experience reality through their own senses, and there isn't any other way to do it. Reality doesn't care how we label things just to make our lives easier, and it definitely doesn't care whether we choose to accept being a part of it or not.
Saying humans are subjective—just because we perceive things through the only lens available to us—doesn't mean we can't have objective observations.
If a person accepts that they're just one piece of a reality they can't control by sheer willpower, and if they actually respect the laws of logic... then yeah, their perception can be objective.

What you're describing there is consistency, not objectivity.

fadedbison17 said:Love that title you used: 'man as the measurer of the immeasurable.'
Everything we see, feel, or know—it all gets filtered through our own lens because there’s nothing outside of us that we can actually experience. We aren't birds or a drop of water... we're just people, and we only perceive reality as humans.

Say we're standing in front of a field, and a buddy walks up and says, "this field is 10 square miles."
Who are we to claim that? Isn't that just a subjective take? What does that field actually have to do with the concept of "10 square miles"?

Humans invented units of measurement—we basically just decided to pick a standard (like the
meter) so we could make sense of distances. We didn't pull the meter out of thin air from some physical reality; we just picked a measure that works for us so we can
show ourselves
how far things are.
But even though that's a "subjective" idea, the measurement itself is objective since a meter is always a meter—it doesn't flip-flop between being two meters or half a meter.

How else would we grasp reality if not through our own context?
Some people call that kind of perception "subjective"—as if there’s some other way to experience the world besides our own senses.

Just to add to that bit about the meter...
Every single unit of measurement—everything we measure—happens within a context. And that context is simply the human being.
Anything invisible to the naked eye is just an extension of human perception. A microscope, an oscilloscope, a telescope... any gadget is just a byproduct of how we perceive things, not a denial of it. These tools exist because we need more knowledge to understand reality better.
If someone discovers a new particle tomorrow that's smaller than anything we've ever found, it'll only be possible because of the knowledge we've built up until now (which all starts with direct perception). It doesn't mean those particles weren't there before; it just means we didn't have the tools or the knowledge to be aware of them yet.Quote: living on this planet finally agree on what is 100% objectively real?

Lawrence Robinson5says: a few questions for the group: when did everyone

I don't really get this one. I mean, nobody's gonna argue when you drop an egg from the tenth floor and it shatters, right?
Maybe you mean most people have their own opinions on the world and don't necessarily agree with what seems obvious to you? I guess that's just life...

I wouldn't go against my own knowledge or logic just to please someone else—doesn't seem worth it. But when you stumble upon someone who actually sees things the way you do, it feels pretty good. Like a sense of connection or belonging... without being dependent on it.

Doing my best...

It’s tough to influence someone just because you want to—people gotta be open to new ideas first. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother writing if I didn't think there was a chance...

I figure there's only one reality, not just my version of it 😉
If I hit an argument that calls me out, I just assume the flaw is in my own thinking—something I need to fix. Happens pretty often, really... doesn't scare me or anything. I just take it in stride. People make mistakes all the time, so it's not like it's some personal failing I should be worried about...

Like I've said a bunch of times before—for anyone who missed my old posts—I believe reality is objective. Humans are part of that reality, and we can't just wish it away with our thoughts or whatever. My whole stance is based on Objectivism...

Maybe the intro to this post actually hits the nail on the head—humans experience reality through their own senses, and there isn't any other way to do it. Reality doesn't care how we label things just to make our lives easier, and it definitely doesn't care whether we choose to accept being a part of it or not.
Saying humans are subjective—just because we perceive things through the only lens available to us—doesn't mean we can't have objective observations.
If a person accepts that they're just one piece of a reality they can't control by sheer willpower, and if they actually respect the laws of logic... then yeah, their perception can be objective.

Think about it—we use measurements to track things we can't even see, interpreting data from electromagnetic spectrums, molecular structures, astronomical readings, or statistical models. We use theoretical reasoning, complex calculations, and all sorts of computer simulations... In my view, that’s plenty of ways to engage with the world beyond just basic sensory perception. And honestly, each of those methods is distinct enough that we can argue none of them are truly "objective," simply because they are all constant—just like a meter, a liter, or a minute—meaning you can't really discredit any single one of them.

fadedbison17 said:Love that title you used: 'man as the measurer of the immeasurable.'
Everything we see, feel, or know—it all gets filtered through our own lens because there’s nothing outside of us that we can actually experience. We aren't birds or a drop of water... we're just people, and we only perceive reality as humans.

Say we're standing in front of a field, and a buddy walks up and says, "this field is 10 square miles."
Who are we to claim that? Isn't that just a subjective take? What does that field actually have to do with the concept of "10 square miles"?

Humans invented units of measurement—we basically just decided to pick a standard (like the
meter) so we could make sense of distances. We didn't pull the meter out of thin air from some physical reality; we just picked a measure that works for us so we can
show ourselves
how far things are.
But even though that's a "subjective" idea, the measurement itself is objective since a meter is always a meter—it doesn't flip-flop between being two meters or half a meter.

How else would we grasp reality if not through our own context?
Some people call that kind of perception "subjective"—as if there’s some other way to experience the world besides our own senses.

Just to add to that bit about the meter...
Every single unit of measurement—everything we measure—happens within a context. And that context is simply the human being.
Anything invisible to the naked eye is just an extension of human perception. A microscope, an oscilloscope, a telescope... any gadget is just a byproduct of how we perceive things, not a denial of it. These tools exist because we need more knowledge to understand reality better.
If someone discovers a new particle tomorrow that's smaller than anything we've ever found, it'll only be possible because of the knowledge we've built up until now (which all starts with direct perception). It doesn't mean those particles weren't there before; it just means we didn't have the tools or the knowledge to be aware of them yet.Quote: living on this planet finally agree on what is 100% objectively real?

Lawrence Robinson5says: a few questions for the group: when did everyone

I don't really get this one. I mean, nobody's gonna argue when you drop an egg from the tenth floor and it shatters, right?
Maybe you mean most people have their own opinions on the world and don't necessarily agree with what seems obvious to you? I guess that's just life...

I wouldn't go against my own knowledge or logic just to please someone else—doesn't seem worth it. But when you stumble upon someone who actually sees things the way you do, it feels pretty good. Like a sense of connection or belonging... without being dependent on it.

Doing my best...

It’s tough to influence someone just because you want to—people gotta be open to new ideas first. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother writing if I didn't think there was a chance...

I figure there's only one reality, not just my version of it 😉
If I hit an argument that calls me out, I just assume the flaw is in my own thinking—something I need to fix. Happens pretty often, really... doesn't scare me or anything. I just take it in stride. People make mistakes all the time, so it's not like it's some personal failing I should be worried about...

Like I've said a bunch of times before—for anyone who missed my old posts—I believe reality is objective. Humans are part of that reality, and we can't just wish it away with our thoughts or whatever. My whole stance is based on Objectivism...

Maybe the intro to this post actually hits the nail on the head—humans experience reality through their own senses, and there isn't any other way to do it. Reality doesn't care how we label things just to make our lives easier, and it definitely doesn't care whether we choose to accept being a part of it or not.
Saying humans are subjective—just because we perceive things through the only lens available to us—doesn't mean we can't have objective observations.
If a person accepts that they're just one piece of a reality they can't control by sheer willpower, and if they actually respect the laws of logic... then yeah, their perception can be objective.

Well, you find that in every religious group, or really any community built under the umbrella of an ideology. A philosopher, though—they generally try not to belong to anything at all; their goal is to follow the path of knowledge. More often than not, that means being an outsider or getting marginalized rather than finding a group of like-minded people to feel close to. You've basically covered the whole playbook here, but at least you've laid out your motives for everyone else—even if you haven't quite figured them out yourself yet.

Edward Flores4 said:What you're describing there is consistency, not objectivity.

Think about it—we use measurements to track things we can't even see, interpreting data from electromagnetic spectrums, molecular structures, astronomical readings, or statistical models. We use theoretical reasoning, complex calculations, and all sorts of computer simulations... In my view, that’s plenty of ways to engage with the world beyond just basic sensory perception. And honestly, each of those methods is distinct enough that we can argue none of them are truly "objective," simply because they are all constant—just like a meter, a liter, or a minute—meaning you can't really discredit any single one of them.

Well, you find that in every religious group, or really any community built under the umbrella of an ideology. A philosopher, though—they generally try not to belong to anything at all; their goal is to follow the path of knowledge. More often than not, that means being an outsider or getting marginalized rather than finding a group of like-minded people to feel close to. You've basically covered the whole playbook here, but at least you've laid out your motives for everyone else—even if you haven't quite figured them out yourself yet.

What's your deal, following my posts around just to twist my words and talk nonsense...? Seriously annoying.
Just a heads up—I've put you on my ignore list. Honestly, I'd rather just toss a grenade at ya... 😛

fadedbison17 said:What's your deal, following my posts around just to twist my words and talk nonsense...? Seriously annoying.
Just a heads up—I've put you on my ignore list. Honestly, I'd rather just toss a grenade at ya... 😛

That right there? That’s what I call objective fanaticism. 😁

If you're looking to dive deep into the whole debate over objectivity versus subjectivity, you really ought to check out my previous post about the future, the past, and the present... I think you'll find it pretty gripping. Honestly, it slipped my mind for a second just how much I poured into that one...
As for all those nitty-gritty details, I'm gonna tackle them here either later today or whenever the mood strikes me...😁

Lawrence Robinson5 said:If you're looking to dive deep into the whole debate over objectivity versus subjectivity, you really ought to check out my previous post about the future, the past, and the present... I think you'll find it pretty gripping. Honestly, it slipped my mind for a second just how much I poured into that one...
As for all those nitty-gritty details, I'm gonna tackle them here either later today or whenever the mood strikes me...😁

When it comes down to the whole debate over what is objective and what is subjective—and I really hope this fits within the scope of this discussion—I honestly find myself wondering how any piece of knowledge can truly be considered objective when it’s fundamentally born from a perspective that is inherently subjective (I know, I know, I've used the word "always" far too many times in this post 🙂), because, at its core, all perception emerges from the immeasurable field of the individual subject.

What I’m wrestling with now, looking at things from this angle, is this:

The realm of the objective is inextricably linked to the subject. Or rather, it's the limit of what a subject can actually reach, based on how much they are intellectually and intuitively capable of grasping the complex fabric of an objectively subjective reality. Since we are dealing with something immeasurable, the human being—the subject—will always serve as the yardstick for that reality, simply because we can't measure or perceive it from any vantage point outside of ourselves.

On the flip side, I tend to believe that objective reality (though one has to wonder what that actually looks like?) exists independently of us as subjects; in other words, that when a person dissolves—through death—they become part of that objective reality and merge with it.
After all, if we weren't set apart and placed in relation to the world—even if I'm just using these spatial metaphors to try and make sense of my thoughts—how else could we possibly perceive and witness the world while simultaneously discovering our own place within it?

But then again, what does any of this actually mean?

p.s. regarding that quantum physics stuff you bring up so often in your posts—which I'm actually pretty interested in myself—and what you wrote in that thread about time, I might have a question for you, but let me chew on it for a bit until I figure out how to phrase it properly...

steelridge58 said:When it comes down to the whole debate over what is objective and what is subjective—and I really hope this fits within the scope of this discussion—I honestly find myself wondering how any piece of knowledge can truly be considered objective when it’s fundamentally born from a perspective that is inherently subjective (I know, I know, I've used the word "always" far too many times in this post 🙂), because, at its core, all perception emerges from the immeasurable field of the individual subject.

What I’m wrestling with now, looking at things from this angle, is this:

The realm of the objective is inextricably linked to the subject. Or rather, it's the limit of what a subject can actually reach, based on how much they are intellectually and intuitively capable of grasping the complex fabric of an objectively subjective reality. Since we are dealing with something immeasurable, the human being—the subject—will always serve as the yardstick for that reality, simply because we can't measure or perceive it from any vantage point outside of ourselves.

On the flip side, I tend to believe that objective reality (though one has to wonder what that actually looks like?) exists independently of us as subjects; in other words, that when a person dissolves—through death—they become part of that objective reality and merge with it.
After all, if we weren't set apart and placed in relation to the world—even if I'm just using these spatial metaphors to try and make sense of my thoughts—how else could we possibly perceive and witness the world while simultaneously discovering our own place within it?

But then again, what does any of this actually mean?

p.s. regarding that quantum physics stuff you bring up so often in your posts—which I'm actually pretty interested in myself—and what you wrote in that thread about time, I might have a question for you, but let me chew on it for a bit until I figure out how to phrase it properly...

Humans are part of objective reality, and they stop being subjects and become objects the moment they observe it.
While observing reality, a person acts like an object, possessing its own specific characteristics—just like anything else—and those are their cognitive abilities.

Those cognitive traits are just properties of the human acting as an object within reality.

Hope this isn't coming on too strong:
How could a human actually *be* subjective? If they thought: "Nope, I don't care about reality or what I see, hear, and feel; things will just be whatever I imagine them to be."
Even then, the relationship between reality and the human wouldn't change—only the human's conscious relationship to it would. Reality and the person would still function by their own objective rules (you can't wish yourself into flight by flapping your arms, and that annoying car engine won't stop running just because you decided it should be quiet).

I honestly don't know if I should be laughing at myself or just feeling a little embarrassed because I always seem to find myself overthinking these things until my head starts spinning, but I really wanted to jump in here and share what's been on my mind lately regarding this whole situation. It feels like we’re all just trying to navigate this massive, complicated landscape without a map, and sometimes I feel like I'm stumbling around in the dark while everyone else seems to have found their footing, though that might just be my own clumsy perception talking. Anyway, I've been thinking about how much effort we put into these discussions and whether we're actually getting anywhere or if we're just circling the same drain, but even if we are, there's something strangely comforting about knowing we're all in this together, even when it feels completely overwhelming. kaže:
I’ve always felt that we aren't just some isolated observers floating through life, because when you really stop to think about it, a person is actually an integral part of objective reality itself—meaning that the moment you start perceiving the world around you, you cease being a mere subject and effectively become an object within that very reality.

fadedbison17, am I totally off base if I suggest that an object only becomes a subject at the exact moment it begins to perceive reality? It feels to me like that’s the whole point—that by using all those cognitive faculties that define its very existence, it transcends being just a mere thing or a simple occurrence; without the capacity to actually sense and feel, it would just be nothing more than a hollow presence in the world.

I honestly don't know why I even bother bringing these things up sometimes, because it feels like I'm just shouting into a void, but I really think we need to sit down and actually talk about how much everything is changing around us. It’s one of those things where you look back at how simple things used to be—and I mean truly, genuinely simple—and then you look at the chaos of today and realize how quickly the ground has shifted under our feet. I might be overthinking this, or maybe I'm just being overly dramatic, but there's a real sense that we're losing that core connection to what actually matters, and it honestly breaks my heart a little bit to see it happening in real-time. kaže:
Our cognitive abilities are really just the defining traits of being a human being existing as an object within the actual, physical reality of our world.

That’s actually exactly why I don’t look at him as some kind of object.

fadedbison17 said:What's your deal, following my posts around just to twist my words and talk nonsense...? Seriously annoying.
Just a heads up—I've put you on my ignore list. Honestly, I'd rather just toss a grenade at ya... 😛

Edward Flores4 said:That right there? That’s what I call objective fanaticism. 😁

🤣

steelridge58 said:

I honestly don't know if I should be laughing at myself or just feeling a little embarrassed because I always seem to find myself overthinking these things until my head starts spinning, but I really wanted to jump in here and share what's been on my mind lately regarding this whole situation. It feels like we’re all just trying to navigate this massive, complicated landscape without a map, and sometimes I feel like I'm stumbling around in the dark while everyone else seems to have found their footing, though that might just be my own clumsy perception talking. Anyway, I've been thinking about how much effort we put into these discussions and whether we're actually getting anywhere or if we're just circling the same drain, but even if we are, there's something strangely comforting about knowing we're all in this together, even when it feels completely overwhelming. kaže:
I’ve always felt that we aren't just some isolated observers floating through life, because when you really stop to think about it, a person is actually an integral part of objective reality itself—meaning that the moment you start perceiving the world around you, you cease being a mere subject and effectively become an object within that very reality.

fadedbison17, am I totally off base if I suggest that an object only becomes a subject at the exact moment it begins to perceive reality? It feels to me like that’s the whole point—that by using all those cognitive faculties that define its very existence, it transcends being just a mere thing or a simple occurrence; without the capacity to actually sense and feel, it would just be nothing more than a hollow presence in the world.

I honestly don't know why I even bother bringing these things up sometimes, because it feels like I'm just shouting into a void, but I really think we need to sit down and actually talk about how much everything is changing around us. It’s one of those things where you look back at how simple things used to be—and I mean truly, genuinely simple—and then you look at the chaos of today and realize how quickly the ground has shifted under our feet. I might be overthinking this, or maybe I'm just being overly dramatic, but there's a real sense that we're losing that core connection to what actually matters, and it honestly breaks my heart a little bit to see it happening in real-time. kaže:
Our cognitive abilities are really just the defining traits of being a human being existing as an object within the actual, physical reality of our world.

That’s actually exactly why I don’t look at him as some kind of object.

So, let me see if I'm following you—it sounds like a person can't really be an object because they're conscious? And consciousness is just one of those things that makes a human (as an object within reality) what it is.

Just to dive a bit deeper into the logic here so I'm clear on my use of the word object. From here on out, I’m gonna use the term entity. Basically, anything that exists in reality exists as *something*—something specifically defined. Anything at all is an entity. An entity has an identity (meaning it has specific traits; think Aristotelian law of identity: A is A).
For instance:
An apple is red, round, and smooth.
A human breathes, bleeds if cut, possesses consciousness, and has cognitive abilities.
Both examples describe the identity of an entity.

A person acts as a subject of perception during introspection—you know, when they're looking inward, feeling stuff, thinking, imagining, remembering, etc.
Even then, the person is still aware of objective reality; their inner world is just a characteristic of their consciousness. Being conscious is part of being human, and humans are part of reality. The fact that we can look inward doesn't negate reality—if anything, reality "allows" for that introspection to happen.

There isn't any other way for a person to be conscious besides through their own consciousness.
Might also be worth noting that humans make mistakes and aren't all-knowing—those are just more characteristics of our consciousness too...

fadedbison17 said:So, let me see if I'm following you—it sounds like a person can't really be an object because they're conscious? And consciousness is just one of those things that makes a human (as an object within reality) what it is.

Just to dive a bit deeper into the logic here so I'm clear on my use of the word object. From here on out, I’m gonna use the term entity. Basically, anything that exists in reality exists as *something*—something specifically defined. Anything at all is an entity. An entity has an identity (meaning it has specific traits; think Aristotelian law of identity: A is A).
For instance:
An apple is red, round, and smooth.
A human breathes, bleeds if cut, possesses consciousness, and has cognitive abilities.
Both examples describe the identity of an entity.

A person acts as a subject of perception during introspection—you know, when they're looking inward, feeling stuff, thinking, imagining, remembering, etc.
Even then, the person is still aware of objective reality; their inner world is just a characteristic of their consciousness. Being conscious is part of being human, and humans are part of reality. The fact that we can look inward doesn't negate reality—if anything, reality "allows" for that introspection to happen.

There isn't any other way for a person to be conscious besides through their own consciousness.
Might also be worth noting that humans make mistakes and aren't all-knowing—those are just more characteristics of our consciousness too...

Fair enough. So, I did a little digging through some texts I found, and here is what I came across:

Human consciousness seems to involve two conflicting concepts: the "I" as a subject and the "I" as an object. The subjective "I" is the pure form, which stands in contrast to the objective "I"—that material element—and together, they form a single being.

What I was trying to point out to you earlier wasn't that the person isn't an object because they observe, but rather that the very act of observing is something that flows directly from the subject. Basically, when a person perceives objective reality as something distinct from themselves—something they are constantly interacting with—they aren't just an object; they are the subject doing the perceiving and understanding of that world. Objects essentially serve as the bridge for our perception.

And honestly, you can't really split the real world into "objective" and "subjective" pieces without ignoring how everything is so deeply interconnected and tangled together into one single, unified field. That field is what makes up the world, and it's also the space where I exist.

But if I'm reading you right, the core logic behind why you view a human as an object within objective reality seems to be this: since you start with the idea that all of reality is objective, it follows logically for you that humans must also be objects as part of that larger whole.

On that note, I thought you might find this interesting ( regarding the concept of the embodied being ):

I am not this body, nor am I merely a human being or a persona; instead, it is through this body, as a human being, that I exist in a world alongside other "I's."

The human "I," through their physical body, exists in a world where self-actualization is only possible alongside other "I's" who exist in much the same way through their own bodies.

This "I" would be the pure subject. Consciousness of this self is always present, accompanying every single act of will and every moment of realization.

p.s. I didn't address your other points because I feel like I've already rambled on for far too long.

steelridge58 said:Fair enough. So, I did a little digging through some texts I found, and here is what I came across:

Human consciousness seems to involve two conflicting concepts: the "I" as a subject and the "I" as an object. The subjective "I" is the pure form, which stands in contrast to the objective "I"—that material element—and together, they form a single being.

What I was trying to point out to you earlier wasn't that the person isn't an object because they observe, but rather that the very act of observing is something that flows directly from the subject. Basically, when a person perceives objective reality as something distinct from themselves—something they are constantly interacting with—they aren't just an object; they are the subject doing the perceiving and understanding of that world. Objects essentially serve as the bridge for our perception.

And honestly, you can't really split the real world into "objective" and "subjective" pieces without ignoring how everything is so deeply interconnected and tangled together into one single, unified field. That field is what makes up the world, and it's also the space where I exist.

But if I'm reading you right, the core logic behind why you view a human as an object within objective reality seems to be this: since you start with the idea that all of reality is objective, it follows logically for you that humans must also be objects as part of that larger whole.

On that note, I thought you might find this interesting ( regarding the concept of the embodied being ):

I am not this body, nor am I merely a human being or a persona; instead, it is through this body, as a human being, that I exist in a world alongside other "I's."

The human "I," through their physical body, exists in a world where self-actualization is only possible alongside other "I's" who exist in much the same way through their own bodies.

This "I" would be the pure subject. Consciousness of this self is always present, accompanying every single act of will and every moment of realization.

p.s. I didn't address your other points because I feel like I've already rambled on for far too long.

It's not too long, but you definitely opened a massive can of worms here 🙂 Talking about the relationship between consciousness and reality—or if that even exists at all.

Generally speaking, there are two ways to look at it.
One is the subjective perspective, where consciousness is primary. This view suggests consciousness actually creates reality—or multiple realities—meaning nobody can ever know anything for certain.
Personally, I don't buy that. I lean toward the second one—the objective perspective—where reality is primary. It basically says reality is everything that exists, and humans just use consciousness to perceive it.

That "I" you mentioned is consciousness—the thing doing the observing. Consciousness looks outward (trees, rocks, other people...) and inward (fleeting feelings, memories, a pain in your leg, etc.).

Consciousness isn't separate from reality (everything that exists); it doesn't exist on its own. For consciousness to be aware of itself, it first has to be aware of *something*. And by "something," I mean anything—a cigarette, letters on a screen, a thought, a slight feeling of pleasure, heat in your body... Only after consciousness perceives something can it become aware of itself through that experience.
Without something (without reality), there is no consciousness. Consciousness relies on reality.

So, consciousness is a part of reality, not outside of it.
Since consciousness is part of reality, it's just like everything else in the universe—it's objective.

From what I've seen, most people dodge an objective perspective just because they're scared of losing their "humanity." But honestly? It's the exact opposite—embracing that objectivity actually helps you grasp reality better, which leads to a deeper understanding of consciousness and its quirks... and that naturally leads to much better mental health.

fadedbison17 said:It's not too long, but you definitely opened a massive can of worms here 🙂 Talking about the relationship between consciousness and reality—or if that even exists at all.

Generally speaking, there are two ways to look at it.
One is the subjective perspective, where consciousness is primary. This view suggests consciousness actually creates reality—or multiple realities—meaning nobody can ever know anything for certain.
Personally, I don't buy that. I lean toward the second one—the objective perspective—where reality is primary. It basically says reality is everything that exists, and humans just use consciousness to perceive it.

That "I" you mentioned is consciousness—the thing doing the observing. Consciousness looks outward (trees, rocks, other people...) and inward (fleeting feelings, memories, a pain in your leg, etc.).

Consciousness isn't separate from reality (everything that exists); it doesn't exist on its own. For consciousness to be aware of itself, it first has to be aware of *something*. And by "something," I mean anything—a cigarette, letters on a screen, a thought, a slight feeling of pleasure, heat in your body... Only after consciousness perceives something can it become aware of itself through that experience.
Without something (without reality), there is no consciousness. Consciousness relies on reality.

So, consciousness is a part of reality, not outside of it.
Since consciousness is part of reality, it's just like everything else in the universe—it's objective.

From what I've seen, most people dodge an objective perspective just because they're scared of losing their "humanity." But honestly? It's the exact opposite—embracing that objectivity actually helps you grasp reality better, which leads to a deeper understanding of consciousness and its quirks... and that naturally leads to much better mental health.

I can't really give you a proper answer right this second because I need to wrap my head around all of this, and honestly, it’s a lot to process. 🙂 even if I wanted to,

Anyway, if you want to dive deeper, maybe start a new thread about the relationship between consciousness and reality so we don't clutter up this specific discussion. Plus, I still owe you an answer regarding those apples we talked about.

🙂 So yeah, let me know if you want to go there.