If it can be agreed that subjective things exist, how can it also be agreed that objective things are all encompassing? Since I’m taking a deterministic viewpoint, doesn’t any existing subjectivity have to be objective somehow? I can see why some people believe that subjectivity is useless from this standpoint. It seems that objectivity can be the only truth while subjectivity just tries to reach some truth. I can see how this could create a lot of ‘gap’ theories. So if we think that our actions are governed, at least somewhat, by a subjective perception than objectivity has to exist somewhere right? Is in it a little insane that we have no idea how this subjective perception objectively exist? Perhaps the reason this conscious is hard to find is because everything that represents it is subjective. Still I feel like there is something important missing here, and It’s killing me to figure out what. I don’t know how to connect subjective things to an objective world.
If the conscious mind is a set of functions which somehow give us a subjective real time perception. (an amazing ability BTW, almost can’t believe it exists) Then these functions are deterministic but the perception can change the way the body reacts, moves, and acts by priming our unconscious self. I’m having trouble figuring out how deterministic things can use a subjective idea to change something. So the question is, how do subjective things govern our actions? How does the subjective break away from the objective. If it doesn’t, how do the two exist in the same place? The third option would be that subjective doesn’t exist, in which case I would like an explanation as to how this illusion can exist, and how we can’t tell that it is one.
I want to know if i’m on the right track here when I say…
Through Evolution we have gained subjective perception, the subjective perception loops information back into itself and the perception has some control over the actions based on the perception. the control has to be deterministic as it represents change, something that can only be objective. The function that could do that seems so hard to even imagine. The fact that we don’t know by just looking is even more upsetting. That line, I just don’t know what to do with it. is it even there? Does it have to be there? What else can be drawn here? I need some help understanding this problem.
Some versions of determinism don’t allow for actions to be governed. There is no governance at all with that kind of determinism. But if that kind of determinism (I’d call it “naive determinism”, or some kind of atomistic determinism or something) were true you could in practice or at least in theory precisely predict the actions of a person or animal. You could exclude “mind” from any equation. People who believe such a thing tend to believe that any other conception of mind must invoke the supernatural, or somehow involve substance dualism. I think there is good reason to believe this is not the case, not least of which is that excluding mind from the equation is in fact divorcing subjective experience from objective reality. But you can’t step outside reality to view it objectively. You can’t do it. You can’t avoid your mind, nor the minds of others.
It seems intuitively that some kind of determinism must be true. But perhaps there are broader or deeper ways to understand what determinism could entail.
To me, the problem you’re struggling with seems easily soluble in the following way: it is an objective fact that so-and-so feels this way or that, and that feeling objectively has this or that effect on his behavior. But what his feeling tells him (about the world) is subjective - for example, that the war in Iraq is evil - for it seems to attempt to make a claim of truth, or to describe the world, in such a way that other contending truths/descriptions - and indeed others will hold some - are mutually exclusive - hence the subjectivity.
In short: 1) the having of the feeling (and its effects) are objective, but 2) what it says is subjective.
So what is said is irrelevant? since the feeling and everything is objective, then the subjective is irrelevant to any action. I believe you make the following argument, subjective things are what is thought to be an explanation of the objective counterparts. So, no actual determination eas created by the subjective view. Still I feel like the subjective does govern our actions somehow. How is it that our mind has such a powerful illusion of control?
Not true. The feeling will determine the action. If I believe that the war in Iraq is evil, this may be a subjective assessment (since others may disagree yet there is no easy way to determine who is right), but it will determine what I do - I will protest against it, I will speak out against it, etc.
Hmm, So the feeling is subjective, and the feeling can be explained using nothing but objective things. How come one feeling to one person, can mean something completely different to another person. I can see how feelings push actions, but I don’t know if it determines them. The feelings can be understood differently. And how the feeling is understood seems to determine the action. The feeling can not only be understood differently but can also be understood on a different level depending on the subjective perception. (e.g. the differences between acting on a feeling as soon as you feel it, and trying to consciously understand that same feeling before you do anything) So to apply what you are saying to this, it would mean that any subjectivity can be objectively explained. although trying to explain any higher would require information which we just don’t have?
I’m not saying that people don’t let their actions be governed by their emotions, but I’m saying that isn’t necessarily true for all people. How our subjective perception can make whatever it wants of that feeling and base the actions off of this completely subjective understanding. I understand your argument, In which case the end would conclude that there isn’t enough information to explain this phenomena. Still the question burns in my mind.
Churro, I think you’ve misunderstood me. I said “some versions of determinism”. Though you’re definitely correct to say that there are broader, deeper ways to understand determinism than my own understanding. I take that as a given.
There is no way of separating yourself from the problem. That’s what you are trying to do. You are putting emotion/feeling out there and trying to look and deal with it as if it is an object outside of you. When you separate yourself, the only result is that exactly what you anticipate would happen. That is inevitable. So you have no way of controlling that at all. Is there anything that you can do to prevent this separation from what you are? You are yourself the emotion and whatever you do to stop that, prevent it, or do something about it, is false. That preventing etc. will be tomorrow or in your next life – not now. So that is what you are.
Do you mean to ask how subjective experiences can feel different - or how we can arrive at different assessments of (perhaps) the same subjective experience? In either case, I’m inclined to ask why not? Isn’t that just the nature of mind?
Are you leaving room for free will here?
I would think the difference between these two cases is only a matter of complexity. The reactive mind is a lot more simple than the reflective. The reflective mind adds something - thought - to his initial impressions and feelings. But this difference isn’t in any significant way fundamental to the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. The extra level of thought that the reflective mind adds may be objective (and about his first-level mental states) or it may be just more subjective apraisals.
What exactly is the phenomenon your trying to explain? How we get subjectivity in an objective world? Is this the same as the question of how mind arises from matter?
If you’re interested, I’ve got a website that takes a stab at it: mm-theory.com, but it’s quite a lengthy work (so be forewarned! )
Well, I would say it’s all illusion in a way. In the absence of thought identifying and recognizing we have no way of knowing that something is an experience, no matter at what level or direction thought is. Thought uses a process involving knowledge to create a continuity and permanence for itself, thus establishing an identity.
There is no thing there that identifies you other than this constant utilization of thought. There is no ’you’ there, no entity apart from the knowledge. Knowledge that thought uses to define mind is inseparable from mind. They are one in the same. Whether ’mind’ (and all of its alleged functions) is there or not, is rejected or accepted by the knowledge you use about it. So, even the subjective assessments rely on what has been given or put into you. If the beginning point of thought, when used to arrive at something, brings into existence the one who is using the knowledge that was put into him, then the illusion also begins at that point.
Aren’t actions only seemingly objective due to the simplifications of grammar? Subjective behaviour is unique but made to seem objective through sematics? Words simplify our understanding of a phenomena by reducing it to a strict mental image emerging from the word? Just a thought.
I would say that the initial delivery of the stimulation of the senses to the brain is the objective phenomenon. The choice of words used to describe a subjective experience is superimposed over that.
I misunderstood what you were saying. I was thinking that you said the following, "Two different people will experience the same thing, then that experience will cause behavior. The behavior is then explained subjectively, as it can’t explain it objectively.
Yes it is the same question as how the mind arises from matter. I felt the paradox which your webstie explains. Your theory is very interesting. I’m halfway through ‘Advanced Theory of Mind and Matter.’ I’ll try and give you some feedback when i’m done with reading all of your theory. Although be forewarned, prior to this reading I have had a shallow understanding of these concepts and have taken no college courses in neuroscience, or philosophy. (i’m taking one on philosphy next semester) So i found the principles of neuroscience to be very enlightning. I didn’t know we knew so much about the brain. I can clearly see how parellel experiences solve the mind and matter paradox. Which is really what this thread is about.
Yeah, I didn’t quite mean that. I meant to say that it can be an objective fact that so-and-so is having subjective experience X (whether X is a sensation, an aesthetic appreciation, an opinion, a judgment, etc.), and it can be an objective fact that X lead so-and-so to act in such-and-such way (whether he was determined to act or there was some level of free choice wedged in there is still an open question at this point).
Wow, you’re one of the rare people who actually has the patience to read that far into my website! Thanks a lot!
I was referring to the sense organs. Light striking the retina, or sound waves vibrating the ear drum. To experience sight or sound, there is first the transferring of information per signals from a stimulated sense organ to the brain. That basically is how we all function, after which there is subjective interpretation but not before activation of memory neurons which I supposes we could say is another non subjective functioning.
For some reason I can’t escape mentioning how the input of knowledge to memory (which might be another non subjective) plays a significant role in how we respond to certain situations, ideas or concepts. Sure we may consider various possibilities and consequences, be patient in our contemplation, but we are limited to the ‘sphere’ of knowledge within which we have the ability to know and experience anything.
Ty churro … you know what’s funny … I was concerned about how well I was doing being that I’m getting up there in my number of posts: geez … am I gonna be the only moron with a lot of posts?
Hey Churro, it looks like I’m almost as big a moron as you! I trail your post count by only a small margin. I’m about to overlap you, buddy. Then I can claim the heavyweight belt of moronhood! HA! HA! HA! HA!
I think that even the the sense organs can be considered subjective sensory though. Everything that happens in the mind is interpretation. That interpretation is all based on meaning, and that meaning is the reason for our actions. You can say that the meaning we give is not the reason for our actions. But then you would be saying that we somehow reduce the objective cause to our own terms somewhere along the way. I think there is more than causality at work here. I definitely agree it is the only way to gain an understanding of the world around us, but that is because of the way we work, not the universe.
)
