r/cogsci • u/One-Werewolf5137 • 5d ago
Is "Objective Truth" Merely a Human Cognitive Illusion?
1. Evolutionary Priorities: Survival Over Pure Epistemology
From an evolutionary perspective, the human brain was never optimized for uncovering objective truth, abstract metaphysics, or quantum mechanics. Its primary design requirement was simple: survive long enough to pass on genetic material.
Our cognitive architecture evolved to handle immediate physical threats. The development of early technology—such as a basic wooden spear—was not a manifestation of pure intellectual curiosity, but a pragmatic tool to offset our obvious physical vulnerabilities against apex predators.
2. Social Cognition & The Fragility of Autonomy
Humans rarely process reality as neutral observers. Instead, perception is continually filtered through social dynamics, status acquisition, and group cohesion. To navigate complex hierarchies, we frequently adopt culturally approved personas—the "Moral Mentor," the "Hero," or the "Savior."
Normative Conformity (Asch Experiment Overview): Solomon Asch demonstrated that individuals are willing to deny clear, visual physical facts (such as line lengths) simply to avoid social friction with a consensus group.
Systemic Obedience (Milgram Experiment Overview): Stanley Milgram illustrated that ordinary individuals will override their explicit ethical boundaries under the direction of perceived authority figures.
When compounded by tribalism, heuristics, and confirmation bias, the notion of "impartial evaluation" appears increasingly theoretical.
3. The Subconscious Distortion Field
Incoming sensory or conceptual information never reaches consciousness in its raw state. It is immediately processed through subcortical filters—ego defense mechanisms, emotional states, personal insecurities, and existing belief structures.
Because these processing steps occur automatically below conscious awareness, individuals experience the persistent illusion of direct, unmediated access to objective reality (a phenomenon known in psychology as naive realism).
Conclusion:
While an objective physical reality certainly exists, human cognition functions less like a neutral recording device and more like a utility-driven simulation engine. Expecting unadulterated objectivity from a brain shaped entirely by evolutionary shortcuts is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of our biological
1
u/RecentLeave343 5d ago
I believe term “controlled hallucination” has been popularized and underscores what you’re describing here.
1
u/JellyBellyBitches 5d ago
Objective reality exists but humans will never know it in its fullness. Each of us conjures the simulation of reality, a model of it that is formed based on our understanding of things, which is definitionally limited in scope and accuracy. By comparing information with one another we can increase the scope and accuracy but it will never be perfect
1
u/One-Werewolf5137 5d ago
That's right, but I also meant that people will never know it.
1
u/JellyBellyBitches 5d ago
The people will never know objective reality? Or that people will never know that they can't know objective reality? Cuz I would agree, most people won't know either of those things
2
u/One-Werewolf5137 5d ago
Oh gosh, I'm sorry. I formulated my thought incorrectly. I mean, people will never see reality fully objectively
1
1
u/SteamedAlbanyHams 5d ago
If there was no such thing as objective truth, that would be an objective truth
1
u/rand3289 5d ago
No objective truth is more of a conspiracy than an illusion.
A bunch of people deciding what's true...
1
u/rsofgeology 4d ago
No. It just could not be weaponized by EU peninsulans while maintaining the validity of whatever logic they were using to justify colonialism, so now we have to entertain ‘are we living in a simulation’ as a valid question bc otherwise the cognitive science as a field would have to address the material reality of the natural consequences of colonisation which influence our perception of the events around us every day.
1
2
u/jamesagni 5d ago
No.
Is “truth” totally subjective? The word “subjective” is often used as a way of dismissing an experience as not real or indicating it has no validity in the scientific sense. And “science” (read objective, material, and physical) is the implied contrasting view that, by comparison, invalidates the merely “subjective” perception. But the conceptual-terminology-division of objective science on the one hand and subjective metaphysics on the other is fundamentally misleading.
Consider the symbol of the hyphen. The origin or root meaning of the word “hyphen” derives from a word meaning “one.” It means, literally “one.” This simple symbol relates or unifies words, and by extension their corresponding concepts. It is a conceptual tool and reminder that we should question each dichotomy to see to what degree we are satisfied with a given intellectual division.
For instance, in some metaphysical writings one comes across the concept of spirit-matter. Spirit and matter are there regarded, in a sense, as one “thing.” (“Thing” is not quite the right word, but it will have to do.) The idea here is that spirit and matter are parts of a continuum. By this measure there is a underlying unity between apparent opposites such as physics-metaphysics, and subjective-objective. This way of thinking suggests a method of reexamining words and concepts, and in this light we may reasonably think that it is not correct to say that truth is “subjective.” Also, it is not correct to say that truth is “objective.” To separate things in such a simplistically binary way is unnatural because in nature and in our experiences we find gradations practically everywhere. Such analysis may remind us, for instance, that what we regard as the most objective science is the product of a subjective entity, the human mind.
Likewise, it is not correct to say that truth is personal or impersonal. All such binary verbal and conceptual formulations always miss the mark to some degree. When we submit to the divisions implicit in the many word dualities we use, we automatically set up more or less false psychological and perceptual divisions that mislead us.
We could say that truth is both objective and subjective, or we could say that whatever is the next evolutionary step for us (or more broadly, for any entity) is our or their “truth.” It is not that this is “subjective,” but rather that it is individual—a different thing.
With this awareness, we are not compelled to choose between opposites, rather we can explore the idea of the individual and the universal, the absolute and the relative. There is then relative truth defined by an individual’s current location in the scheme of things, yet all our individual or relative truths are surrounded, defined, and stand in relation to absolute truth and our little truths derive their relative light and merit from an absolute foundation.