# If objective reality exists, can we know or trust we know it **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732 "2011-06-24T17:38:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/21 "2011-06-24T19:58:35Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > They are malleable enough to usually come up with a single view from different conflicting views. That seems pretty darn malleable. So I ask also what are the limits to people abandoning what they observed and accepting someone else’s view? > > Also what does it say about the will of the person willing to abandon what they perceived. Does the strong willed person’s view win? I’ll try to explain. \*Everything I say is a lie. If that statement is true, then the statement is a lie because the statement itself is included in the term “everything.” But if the statement is true, then the statement is a lie. But if the statement is a lie, then it must be true.\* And so on and so, _ad infinitum_. That’s the kind of fix you’ve gotten yourself into. By assuming at the outset that the human mind is so malleable as to preclude any reasonably accurate knowledge, you have no basis for asserting reliable knowledge of that extreme malleability, because you are, after all, using a human mind and a human mind can have no reliable knowledge. You’re sawing off the very branch you’re sitting on. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/22 "2011-06-24T20:16:25Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Thus, people aren’t so much willing to abandon what they **perceived** , but what they **remember** having perceived, suggesting that what they don’t completely trust is, not their perception, but their memory. > > Notice that you’re talking about people willing to abandon what they **perceived** (past tense), not what they **perceive** (present tense). OK, I got that, from the point that is the memory of the event which is faulty, a premise I will entertain as a possibility, but have not conceded that point. At what point does it become self serving, that the person assumes that there memory is at fault and automatically accept others views? After a while this person has yielded their ability to discern reality. In practice we see the above all the time, go see a movie with some friends, one asks the other what did you think of the movie, the second one says well what did you think. Finally a third says it sucks monkey balls and the other 2 agree. That 3rd person has defined the subjective reality for the other 2. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/23 "2011-06-24T20:20:12Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I’ll try to explain. > > \*Everything I say is a lie. > > If that statement is true, then the statement is a lie because the statement itself is included in the term “everything.” > > But if the statement is true, then the statement is a lie. > > But if the statement is a lie, then it must be true.\* > > And so on and so, _ad infinitum_. > > That’s the kind of fix you’ve gotten yourself into. By assuming at the outset that the human mind is so malleable as to preclude any reasonably accurate knowledge, you have no basis for asserting reliable knowledge of that extreme malleability, because you are, after all, using a human mind and a human mind can have no reliable knowledge. You’re sawing off the very branch you’re sitting on. This ignores that you lie sometimes and tell the truth other times. And what I am stating is also a combination of subjective and objective reality. The combo that you lie sometimes and sometimes you don’t explain that perfectly, as well as a combo of subjective and objective realities, and does so without having defective people. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/24 "2011-06-24T20:22:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What exactly do you mean by subjective reality? You seem to have admitted that there is an objective reality. No one disputes that our perceptions of this objective reality match it perfectly, so if you define subjective reality as our perception of objective reality (which will not match anyone else’s.) no one would deny that both exist. I think it’s more then subjective reality is one’s perception of objective reality, but both run concurrent. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/25 "2011-06-24T20:25:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Really? [Take a look at this link.](http://animalsbeingdicks.com/page/2) Without reading any other responses to this post, I’d like for six people to answer the following questions (and try to avoid the temptation to nitpick; answer honestly): > > 1. How many animals are visible in the short animated gif? > 2. What kind of animals are they? > 3. What happens in the short animated gif? I would much rather have this test done in a natural, non-viewing of a recorded setting, though the session could be recorded for later review. As it stands it really does not contradict subjective+objective reality. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/26 "2011-06-24T20:31:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Really? [Take a look at this link.](http://animalsbeingdicks.com/page/2) Without reading any other responses to this post, I’d like for six people to answer the following questions (and try to avoid the temptation to nitpick; answer honestly): > > 1. How many animals are visible in the short animated gif? > 2. What kind of animals are they? > 3. What happens in the short animated gif? > > My suspicion is as follows. Please don’t read it until you’ve answered the questions. > > [spoiler]1) Everyone will agree. > 2) There will be slight disagreement on the bird’s identification–some will say bird, some will identify the species (budgie? parakeet?), but everyone will mention some sort of bird. This may or may not happen with the turtle. > 3) Descriptions will vary as to what happens, but everyone will mention the turtle’s fall. > > If there’s no objective reality, it’s hard to account for the similarities among answers.[/spoiler] 1. Hundreds of thousands given the biota contained in both the bird and the turtle and in the garbage can. And is that a meal worm on the counter? Do you need to go back and look to see? If you couldn’t play it again would you believe your recollection or mine? What if several others also reported the mealworm? Ah, but as Margritte noted, “this is not a pipe”. There are no animals there after all, just an image that gives the appearance of animals. A representation. Heck it could be a good cgi. Our minds interpret this 2D moving image as the turtle and the bird and we all overlap enough in our perceptions, are wired similarly enough and have had common enough past experiences, that we interpret these images the same. But the reality is that what we say was pixels moving on a screen. Not a turtle. Not a bird. 2. As above, sure, representations of a turtle, could be a red-eared slider, and a bird, likely a parakeet, and the associated bacteria etc. And maybe a mealworm. What color is the bird without going back in time and looking again. If multiple others say blue, or grey, do you go along with one or the other? 3. Yeah, the pixels represent a turtle knocked over a ledge into a garbage can by a bird. Again, I accept axiomatically that an objective reality exists, but the fact that many of us share a similar experience in our minds does not prove it. We could all just be having similar enough hallucinations or delusions. I only _know_ that your experiences are similar enough to mine that we can function as if we each experienced the same thing - and presumably we did - but we also do not perceive the same things during the same experience. The existence of objective reality is an axiom; it cannot be proven. What matters however is the reliability of our models of our perceptions to predict what we will perceive in the future and how well we share those perceptions with our group. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/27 "2011-06-24T20:34:07Z")
I don’t know if “objective reality” exists, but it makes my life easier and more predictable if I act as if it does. “Reality” might change tomorrow, the dragon eggs may hatch, the sky may peel back like a sheet of aluminum foil, I may actually find enough money in my pockets to buy what I want. if that happens I will try to adjust but until then I will act as if ordinary “reality” is enough to explain my daily experiences. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/28 "2011-06-24T20:44:52Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > 1. Hundreds of thousands… Err, let me quote myself: > [@me](#): > > try to avoid the temptation to nitpick ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/29 "2011-06-24T20:47:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Again, I accept axiomatically that an objective reality exists, but the fact that many of us share a similar experience in our minds does not prove it. Actually it does, since that in itself is a claim of an objective reality. You are claiming that there _are_ other people and that they have experiences; that’s a claim about objective reality. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/30 "2011-06-24T21:07:02Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I think it’s more then subjective reality is one’s perception of objective reality, but both run concurrent. Now this I agree with. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/31 "2011-06-24T22:27:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Err, let me quote myself: Yes, and all the lice and their nits. Individuals’ descriptions of experiences are often overlapping. You really needed a turtle getting kicked into a garbage can to say that? And? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/32 "2011-06-24T22:31:33Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Actually it does, since that in itself is a claim of an objective reality. You are claiming that there _are_ other people and that they have experiences; that’s a claim about objective reality. Okay. I’ll speak more precisely: the fact that I experience others describing experiences in similar ways, does not prove it. It is merely consistent with it. The point is the difference between an induction and a deduction. Many describing the same experience in very similar ways allows one to induce that there is an objective reality that they all experienced. But it does not allow one to deductively prove it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/33 "2011-06-24T22:49:45Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Okay. I’ll speak more precisely: the fact that I experience others describing experiences in similar ways, does not prove it. It is merely consistent with it. Especially if you’re just hallucinating their existence in the first place. (I mean, if you’re having a dream where everyone says they see the same stuff you’re seeing – so what, right?) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/34 "2011-06-24T23:44:00Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Individuals’ descriptions of experiences are often overlapping. You really needed a turtle getting kicked into a garbage can to say that? And? And I was showing that the OP’s claim is ridiculous on its face. He was trying to use a well-known principle of law enforcement–that, given an unexpected and rapid event, people are poor reporters of what happened–to draw a completely unrelated conclusion about reality. I was showing that his conclusion is totally false. Note that he said he’d prefer to conduct the experiment using something people couldn’t watch repeatedly. That would matter if we were talking about the reliability of eyewitnesses to a crime, but it’s completely irrelevant if we’re talking about the objective nature of reality. If reality is subjective, why can several people look at the same flower and independently agree on its color? Why can I ask my students to count out 60 pennies, and they all count out the same number? Why, if I break a window with a hammer while my wife is at work, will she come home and notice a broken window? There is an objective reality. Our perception of it is flawed, but it’s there. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/35 "2011-06-25T00:29:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > … There is an objective reality. Our perception of it is flawed, but it’s there. And you are arguing against the op’s > [@](#): > > I feel there is ample evidence that if objective reality exists, we are incapable of discerning it. and really you are not staking out very different ground. The only issue becomes a pedantic one, given that you both accept the limited nature of our perception of any objective reality: objective reality is unknowable, we assume it exists (and with good cause) and try to form increasingly less poor models of it, both individually and as part of a social exercise, but they are always just models. If something is unknowable can we say with certainty that it exists, other than as an axiomatic statement? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/36 "2011-06-25T00:35:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And you are arguing against the op’sand really you are not staking out very different ground. I have a flawed ability to write essays: I can write them, but they’re not perfect. I am incapable of flapping my wings and flying. It’s completely different ground that I’m staking out. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/37 "2011-06-25T00:54:05Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Note that he said he’d prefer to conduct the experiment using something people couldn’t watch repeatedly. That would matter if we were talking about the reliability of eyewitnesses to a crime, but it’s completely irrelevant if we’re talking about the objective nature of reality. The video is already someone else’s staged view of reality, therefor I want a natural, not influenced but someone’s else’s reality, event. Part of my premise is that one person can change reality for others, therefor a staged even can not be used. Though a natural event can be recorded for later review. > [@](#): > > If reality is subjective, why can several people look at the same flower and independently agree on its color? Why can I ask my students to count out 60 pennies, and they all count out the same number? Again you are defining the reality. Also a common question is does colors actually look the same to different people, in other words if I see blue and you see pink but you have learned that pink is blue, can we ever find out what each other sees. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/38 "2011-06-25T01:08:25Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Again you are defining the reality. ?? That’s because I’m using words. Words have definitions. This is not a significant challenge to what I’m saying. > [@](#): > > Also a common question is does colors actually look the same to different people, in other words if I see blue and you see pink but you have learned that pink is blue, can we ever find out what each other sees. Yes, I remember taking a pee when I was seven and having this question occur to me. I remember soon thereafter deciding that, while it’s kind of cool in a “dude, have you ever really LOOKED at your hands?” way, it doesn’t make a difference, because even if there’s a difference in the blue you see and the blue I see, we see the same things consistently as blue (with exceptions that don’t really pertain to the point). It’s not like if I asked you to pick a blue flower, you’re likely to come back to me with one that I see as red: whatever the underlying reality is, both of us perceive the same phenomena in it as blue. As for the idea that a staged event affects reality, how is this significant? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/39 "2011-06-25T01:57:05Z")
**kanicbird** , you seem to be using the word “reality” as if it means “an individual’s experience” which is a bit TweedleDee TweedleDumish. No, if you convinced me that my father had been secretly a spy for Russia, it would not change the reality of what he was. Agreed c **LOHD** here - I can reasonably presume that your experience of the wavelengths that correlate with “red” are the same as mine because we are wired so similarly, but ultimately as long as you and I both map the same word to the same object/experience, it does not matter. You and I could each experience a color wheel rotated 90 degrees from each other, so what? The reality (or presumed reality) is not “red”; "red is a creation of our minds. The reality is a set of wavelengths that we each experience in internally consistent ways and have each mapped to the word “red”, whether the quale is the same or not. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2011, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732/40 "2011-06-25T02:44:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, I remember taking a pee when I was seven and having this question occur to me. I remember soon thereafter deciding that, while it’s kind of cool in a “dude, have you ever really LOOKED at your hands?” way, it doesn’t make a difference, because even if there’s a difference in the blue you see and the blue I see, we see the same things consistently as blue (with exceptions that don’t really pertain to the point). You have people who are partly color blind, as in unable to distinguish between 2 different colors, which does seem to support that we may perceive colors differently but we are taught a standard. > [@](#): > > It’s not like if I asked you to pick a blue flower, you’re likely to come back to me with one that I see as red: unless the person picking is colorblind to those colors. And things like this happen all the time, a person (boss/spouse) requests you get a object, you get a object that fits the description but they blow up because it doesn’t for them. > [@](#): > > As for the idea that a staged event affects reality, how is this significant? My contention is that there is subjective and objective realities that run concurrently (along with perceived reality). Group influence of any kind usually goes to hide the subjective reality for a person. So a staged event is starting with a contaminated sample so I reject your methodology, what is your objection to mine of using a natural setting, which BTW is exactly where these are known to occur? When we are talking about different realities for different people, purity of the sample would seem to be important - would not you agree? Should we try to get a reality without a person’s influence as a starting point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-objective-reality-exists-can-we-know-or-trust-we-know-it/586732.md?page=3)