Of Objectivity:

Suffice it to say that your definition is superb, but unusable (by humans) and impractical for that reason. It has no value to humans because it describes a reference that is (and must remain) unavailable for comparison. A yardstick that cannot be used to measure things.... — Pattern-chaser

It's a conceptual yard-stick e.g., ethics/morality, whose value is symbolic and only manifests in practical reality according to our understanding and consequent application of it. — BrianW

So when I ask you "Am I a brain in a vat?", hoping to take advantage of your apparent access to Objective Reality, you're going to ... refer to your concept of what OR is, and let me know what you think the Objective answer to my question might be? No, I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. The only piece of Objective knowledge you own - the only piece you ever can or will own - is that Objective Reality exists. You can say nothing more about OR than that. Your "conceptual yardstick" is an attempt to justify some sort of access to OR, when you have none. None. :up:

Objective knowledge is not subject to doubt or challenge; it has only one possible truth value. Please do not pretend to Objectivity, hoping to lend to your outpourings the infallible authority of Objectivity. Your outpourings have no more authority than mine or anyone else's. Sorry. There is no Objectivity for a human; none at all. [Apart from OR actually existing.]

I am sceptical of neo-Darwinian explanations for logic and mathematical ability. — Wayfarer

Well evolution presupposes they exist. Evolution has a general linear A to B timeline. So natural selection is saying, this is the way the universe is and now you have matching mental apparartus. I don't think logic is a peacock tail. Now I do think a lot of mental properties might be peacock tails but it would derail this thread if we went into it.
If logic was purely the result of biology then it would be some form of idealism where concious minds are literally remaking the world as they come into being. I don't think that is correct. I think the common sense intuition is probably right even though it goes against relativity. The brain does piece things together into a coherent reality but I think it's matching an existing reality with logical rules already in existence.

To even apply that logic programmatically, one is going to be using a computer operating with a two-valued logic. What I'm saying is that it's not really an interval of truth values, it's more of a formal trick since in the semantics of fuzzy logic those values disappear, leaving only truth and falsity. — MindForged

Yes. Fuzzy logic was, as I understand it, a means of programming a more flexible arrangement than two-valued logic, using what is available, which is binary logic. It's a way of allowing a computer to reflect real-world conditions that don't really match the computer's inherent abilities. It's a practical compromise.