Objective reality isn't for us to unravel

I only want to devote a half hour or so to writing a blog post tonight, so I'll tackle a simple subject: what is reality?

I'm not being facetious.

It actually is easier to talk about the Big Questions of life rather than the small ones. I feel like I've got a pretty good understanding of the basic elements of reality. But how my computer's operating system works behind the scenes... that's a huge mystery to me.

What are those elements? Subjectivity and objectivity.

Meaning, basically: my subjective experience is mine alone. As is yours. As is our dog's. Nobody has access to what another conscious being is experiencing, or how what philosophers call "qualia" manifest in that experiencing.

There's also an objective aspect to reality. My wife can say, "look, there's a large snake in our garden, over there!" I turn in the direction she's pointing and, yes, I see it too. When people can agree on what's there, we call that objective reality.

Now, obviously a lot more can be said about subjective and objective reality. But I'm not sure if this would add much to our intuitive understanding.

What's personally and privately experienced by me, that's one thing. What's interpersonally and publicly experienced by many people, that's another thing. Subjective experience is individual; objective experience is collective.

I don't feel like I have a responsibility for determining the nature of objective reality. Mostly, there's no need to -- by me or anyone else. Mountains, trees, TV sets, goldfish; generally physical reality manifests just fine without anyone's help.

Science is our best means of coming to agreement about the less obvious aspects of objective reality (science can't say anything about subjective reality, and has never tried to do so).

I appreciate and enjoy comment discussions on this blog a! bout suc h subjects as whether human consciousness is separable from the brain, if near-death experiences point to that sort of non-material consciousness, and whether extra-sensory perception is possible.

However, when it comes to phenomena such as these which could fall into the "objectively real" category, I bow to those who are much better qualified than me to judge what's true and what's false.

Namely, scientists and researchers who devote their careers (or at least a large chunk of them) to delving into these subjects. Conducting experiments, assessing evidence, analyzing arguments for why such-and-such exists or doesn't exist.

I don't have time, the ability, or an inclination to judge whether ESP, non-bodily consciousness, or some other seemingly supernatural phenomenon is objectively real.

I realize that with the rise of the Internet, it's now possible for people to find web sites, studies, research reports, and so on that can be used to defend almost any sort of position on any subject. This is an entertaining game -- just not one that I want to devote much of my attention to.

My approach to global warming is much the same. On my other blog I hear now and then from commenters who question what I've said about some scientific finding about climate change.

What I generally say to them is: "If you've discovered something about the Earth's climate that has escaped the notice of the world's leading climatologists, 97% of whom agree that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming our planet, you need to publish your findings and await a Nobel prize."

That's also how I feel about people who claim to understand the nature of consciousness or some other ill-understood mystery that is amenable to scientific research, being part of objective reality. (Consciousness and the brain clearly are tightly connected, so even if consciousness turns out to be immaterial, almost certainly it has effects on objective reality.)!

P ersonally -- I'm speaking from my subjective reality now -- I'm steadily losing interest in trying to figure out the Big Questions of Life that we humans haven't been able to answer yet.

What are the chances that little me can do what the great thinkers, philosophers, mystics, sages, scientists, and such haven't been able to accomplish since the dawn of recorded history?

Not much.

So when it comes to figuring out the subtle secrets of objective reality, I'll leave that job to the scientists. I'll focus on my subjective reality, which is a full-time job for me (and everybody else). Also, on how my subjective reality interrelates with that of other people, another challenging enterprise.

Last Friday my wife and I went to a get-together of Salem's Social Dance Club. I learn a lot about myself from ballroom dancing. Plus, it's fun. Am I unraveling the secrets of the cosmos when we learn a new salsa move?

No. Or yes. I'm not sure. Uncertainty is OK with me now. I'm happy to leave aside questions about the nature of objective reality when they are unanswerable by me. Life is too short to do anything else.

At least that's how I see things. Subjectively.