Ok, phew… One of the biggest challenges in all human thought is that we understand there is some kind of objective reality and that we can, in most cases, consistently measure it; and there’s also the subjective experience of that objective reality that our physical bodies construct, our consciousness experiences, and is very similar but not exactly the same from person to person.
Much of the history of philosophy and science is about trying to determine “where is the line” between the objective and the subjective. In fact, it’s safe to argue wars have been fought over this divide. Consider this thread! Thus the philosophical and scientific fields of Philosophy of Mind, Neuroscience and Behaviorism, and all that flows from them.
ah no. we can’t prove the existence of objective reality. there is no mechanism for that. the only thing that logic can prove or provide.. is that subjective reality is the core of all experience or observation by the observer.
And it can go no further.
thankfully, that’s a good thing. as we can’t advance if objectivity is in charge, due to the how the human mind works.
It gets into negative proofing and similar mindsets and tries to make itself safe and in the know of things..and puts dogmatism in charge. it’s why religion worked so well as the standard-bearer for so many thousands of years. It’s the monkey origins of the underlying mechanism of self realization or self reflection. Religion loves dogmatism and objective reality, as it goes circular really really fast (due to expressive limits in the face of unknowns) and is useful for fencing people in. Stop human thought today! be wholly objective in all analysis! Meet your own ass today!
Objectivity is an exercise in logic, nothing more. Properly handled it can be safe and very very useful in the progress of humanity. Improperly handled, it kills all around it.
this fundamental point about the animal origins and coloration of all possible avenues of conscious thought, is what gave the renaissance men of the early 1700’s the great idea of creating the vocational slot of engineering.
where rote training methods came into being along with formalized academia in all that... and poof!...engineering came into being (over some 20-40 years).
This is the only way they found they could create an army of useful people out of the complexities that physics was unfolding to them. As the bulk of humanity wasn’t going to be getting into the weeds of the objectivity/subjectivity problem --any time soon. Literally not wired for it. Such folks invariably have no idea what the question of consciousness means, and generally have to look it up in a book ....and then make a mess out of the analysis anyway.
So the renaissance folks of the time... understanding that there is no feasible group mind fix/change/repair (or an individual one outside of one-on-one Buddhism, etc), licked humanity’s mind and brain... and stuck it to the wholly illiterate television (passive unthinking observation and taking in of things) of objectivity - in a way that made these mindsets useful in building out the modern world.
Seriously. That’s how engineering came to be. In Bavaria. by the mid-late 1700’s it was pretty well functional and formalized and worked so well that the rest of the western world adopted it.
this is why Germany still has the best technical schools. They started the whole thing.
It’s also why a negative proofing objective engineering mindset has no place whatsoever in any science discussion unless they take their mindset and invert it and mentally move to proper science, and stay away from dogmatic texts that try to dictate reality to the art of scientific exploration.
As that act, that set of demands, that mindset norm of the vocation of engineering, is literally anti-science. All those scientific laws in engineering don’t exist in actual functional science. Science has only theories and relies on the observer as the fundamental, in order to take humanity forward.
Where OF COURSE this is not the entire package. Dissing it and picking what I say apart to try and dwell on some small nit and trying to blow it up into something bigger.. as some sort of method of disarming the discourse...is merely an act of desperation.
I await the retorts of objective desperation. For they will come, no doubt.