Wrick-It-Ralph

See. What he wrote is a good example.  The whole thing is a logical proof and it's riddle with absurdities.  To even prove it, you have to assume your reality.  saying (I) know (I) am thinking is absurd.  It's proven so easily it's laughable.  Good comment. 

The contrary is impossible because the very act of denying your existence requires you to exist. 

Sure.  Post hoc = after the fact. 

What makes you think there's anything outside of this world?  Where's your proof for that?  You don't get to use your thing that doesn't exist to throw shade on my mind which actually has evidence.  Btw, why do you think something can't prove itself?  Can you give me a logical reason why not? I'm willing to bet that you can't.  I think the reason you can't get past this is because you're presupposing that something can't be self evident.  But where's your evidence for that? 

Can you tell me why it is problematic?  Because if you're the one saying it's a problem, then you have the BoP on that claim. 

Okay, it was confirmed by a subjective life form.  What's your point? 

You're only assuming that we can never truly know.  The fact is that we can know SOME things for certain and that's all we NEED to know.  If we can never know something, then functionally speaking, it's the same as non existence because it can NEVER have an affect on us in any possible way.  If it could, then it's knowable.  Only a fool denies what is Literally right in front of their face (reality.)

It's absurd because the act of proving it is so basic that it's silly.  It's redundant because to prove it amounts to A = A  

There's no such thing as a subjective reality.  subjective reality is just your opinion of reality, it doesn't change the state of affairs, it only changes how you feel about them.  That's why you can't deny your own existence.  This wasn't even just my proof.  Maestro quoted the philosopher who confirmed this. 

self evidence. 

The A part of the statement tells you that it's a tautology which leads you to B because: 

If A = A  then A or Not A

So now I have a tautology and only one of these answers can be true because for both to be true is a contradiction.

Therefore, If I prove either one to be false, then it's proved.  Self evidence Proves A and disproves Not A all at once by showing the impossibility to the contrary.   

To answer it better.  It's self evident. Just like I said before. The requirements for this are.

A) The act of proving it is absurd and redundant.

B) The contrary is impossible. 

So if I asked you if you exist, and you say no, the very act of you saying that you don't exist is impossible because you have to exist to fathom your own nonexistence and then verbalize it to me.  

Furthermore, the act of trying to prove your existence is redundant and absurd.  "I exist because I am here"  It's an absurd and redundant proof and it's true, so it's self evident. 

Metaphysical means "at or beyond the limit of physics"  So once something has been proven 100% you're at the "meta" or final limit.  If something was 80% known, then the other 20% would be the "meta"

The mind itself is not subjective.  Our post hoc assessment that we make with our mind is subjective.  The mind exist objectively because my opinion of my mind doesn't change the fact that I have a mind.  My opinion can only change my thoughts and beliefs and fears, etc, etc. 

Sure, it plays a part.  But that's only a problem if you think you can't go from subjective to objective.

Well when you say it's "subject" to the environment, that's a different word than the one used in subjective.  The subject is the point of interest or the point of action.  So yes you're subject to your environment in the sense that the environment makes you the subject of interactions.  That still isn't problematic.

Yes, but I didn't die because that was my opinion, that makes my death objectively true, I don't see a problem here.  

I don't see how variables make things not objective.  If I grow up poor, what does that have to do with my subjective mind? You might have to explain this one a bit more to me cause it seems like a non sequitur the way you worded it. 

I think the Descartes assessment by that other philosopher.  I should know his name but I'm not usually keen on names.  Anyway, It's good for this topic because that proposition is the only reason that we have solipsism as an idea instead of nothingism.  I think, therefore I am, could be considered the first real truth to be metaphysically proven in philosophy and it's the reason that we can have knowledge at all. 

Sorry, I wasn't purposely trying to be contentious.  I was kind of just spewing my natural response to it, lol. 

I seen your definition and it's a fine definition.  I was merely stating facts about the word itself and what it entails.  We exist because we're objective beings.  I objectively have consciousness and that's not my opinion because I could have the opposite opinion and I would still experience my consciousness.  That means my opinion doesn't change the nature of my existence and therefore I exist under your definition.  

On your science analogy.  I would say that the result you get on the broken equipment is still objective because it is presented to you the same way no matter what.  Even though the data that the scientist gets is ultimately wrong, it's consistently wrong which means that all of the wrong data will fit perfectly with itself as long as the scientist never uses a different tool to verify it.  

There's also a solution to this problem.  The scientist can have more than one copy of the equipment to ensure the quality of the relative equipment.  It's actually an interesting thought experiment, but it ties into what I was talking about with Omar before you jumped in here.  If something is consistently wrong then you can still use it as a tool.  As long as the tool is doing what I want it to do, it doesn't really matter how I perceive it.  If using what looks like a hammer drives in what looks like a nail, I don't have to believe the hammer or the nail to be true to use them nor do I have to view them correctly, as long as my view of reality is congruent to reality, then it's still reliable.  

Well lets keep in mind that the word existence is define by us humans.  Now once we have defined the word in relation to reality, then we can know if something does or does not exist. So physically.  I exist.  My brain exist and my consciousness is an extension of my brain, so I exist.

Descartes get more props than me though because he said it succinctly and made the rest of us look dumb with our long sentences, lol. 

You know it's funny.  My sister posed the color scenario to me one night when we were drinking before I had ever studied anything about philosophy and I intuitively had an answer and I quote myself. 

"If people were seeing different colors then we could have them each sort the spectrum of colors by brightness and if they weren't seeing them the same, it would produce different results" -- Past Ralph. 

Good job me.  Now past me was expedient and didn't consider the possibility of seeing slightly different shades or hues of colors.  On hues it would still be possible to use the test from before.  But on shades, all you would have to do is construct a subset of the test for each color in the spectrum.  So you have a subject look at a bunch of different shades of yellow, then blue, then red, etc. and just map the consistencies.  So that's my answer to the color problem. 

Furthermore, colors are just waves of light, so they don't actually exist as colors.  Even if people did see different colors.  That would just mean that we're not good at making judgements about colors.  It wouldn't exclude our other senses. Just our "sense of color"  if you will. 

Also.  My claim isn't that senses are reliable because of other people.  My argument is that senses are reliable because they're consistent and repeatable.  They're objective because the senses are just nerves firing and can't be affected by opinion and that by comparing our opinions, we can tell when someone is lying about their senses or if they had different senses.  Evidence tells us that our senses are more or less the same with maybe some negligible differences. 

I'm going to try to give you a thorough answer here. 

So by true, me and you would have to assume that something is true when it accurately describes reality,  Because the actual state of reality is the only truth. 

What we see is not exactly reality.  think of it like a mold of reality.  The images we see, for instance are basically photons that all simultaneously bounce off of our eyes to produce a stimulus which then presents itself as a an image based of the shape of what bounced off the eye.  Those photons came from a real object which sent specific waves of light at us and our eyes takes those waves and color code them for us.  Technically speaking.  This little slice of reality that we're viewing actually existed in that form for a second, but our mind filtered it to make it easier to view.  If all we seen was what reality actually looked like, it would be impossible for us to navigate the universe.  Furthermore, it would be impossible to see anything using a method that didn't use light. 

The key thing here is that it is consistent and reliable.  These senses are the reason we're alive and the facts that we draw from them are true based on the fact that we assess what we sense and define the consistencies and inconsistencies.  So what I point at a rock and call it a rock.  It's true because I have decided that the word rock refers to bundles on minerals and I also defined what a bundle and a mineral is etc. etc. So that's a truth by identity.  Then we have truths with states of affairs.  If I say "this pen will drop" and I've defined dropping as what we see as gravity, then it's true because it conforms with the definition.  If I say "this pen will drop" using the same definition I just mentioned and then let go of it and it just floats there, then it's not true. 

So in summation, what we see is true. 

That's cool.  This is how we get the best answers. 

So by levels, you're referring to blind people again?  The answer is that I can compare any sense that another person has or had in the past and still remembers.  So I could explain an image to a blind person if they have spent enough time using their eyes before they were blind.  Although they probably wouldn't use the information as well.  

If we're talking about two people with all the normal senses, then their is no level of senses besides maybe one person using a particular sense better, in which case, they could still compare senses, but one person might get a better subjective assessment out of the comparison than the other. 

Well I can explain it without going to an ought statement.  the fact is just the reason for the ought, it's not the ought itself. 

I would say that yes it hinders their ability to observe the world to a degree. I don't see how this would get us to solipsism.  This is a far cry from not trusting reality, all this tells us is that some people will be better at sensing it. 

Saying "Best" has the same problem.  Best by what standard?  How about this.  Would you agree that each of us only gets to perceive the world one way and that makes it the best way by default? 

It's the royal we.  It's like saying "Does one view the world correctly?"

I can only assume that by individual, you mean my mind or consciousness.  The answer is that the senses don't depend on the mind.  That's why they're objective.  Even if I had a brain with no consciousness, the signals from my senses would still fire, there just wouldn't be anything on the other end perceiving them.  While it's true that my perception is subjective, that doesn't matter because it's not changing anything that my senses are telling me. 

Subjective merely means that it's MY assessment of reality from what I've perceived.  

Objective means that which is, regardless of my assessment of it.  

Since my senses are objective and the senses of other people are also objective, I can compare my subjective assessment with somebody else's to derive facts by which to tell when people are lying about their assessment.  

If everybody actually sensed things differently, then it would be impossible to make this comparison.  Since that is not the case.  It logically follows that everybody's senses are roughly equal with maybe some small inconsistencies here or there cause by bad subjective assessment. 

Being blind or deaf simply means that you have less sensory organs.  That means the amount of objective sense you can assess is lower, but the things that you can still assess with your remaining senses is still just as accurate as anyone else's.  

When you say correct way of perceiving the world, you have to define correct.  Do you mean the best way for your survival?  The most accurate way in terms of navigating reality? Is it correct because even though it's not accurate it makes you moral somehow? I'm going to go with the second one until you define this better. 

The correct way to view the world in this case would be pragmatically. If you're asking:  Do we view the world correctly?  Then the answer is always yes. 

No probs

Do you want me to move my previous points over here? I'm bored as heck today and totally down for a heated discussion 

Senses are not subjective, your mind is subjective.  The senses are objective because your sensory organs don't have opinions.  They merely get stimulated and send signals.  So they're objective. 

I'm late to this so I'll have to audit this as it develops.