The end of the subjectivity debate

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:50 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Subjectivity (S --> O)
Objectivity (O)

It's nothing special.
bla, bla, you so sexy, you so smart.

This is old old old to me. I started this as kid when I first heard of "subject and object" then wondered what the heck it could possibility mean (without reading the owner's manual, mind you). I simply thought "Well, if subjectivity has a subject observing an object, then objectivity must be void the subject. What else could it possibly mean?" Then I was done with it and put it on a shelf until now. I'm actually surprised there is so much debate and pretty much figured it was common knowledge contained in any philosophy textbook... like a definition. I'll concede that conceptualizations of subjectivity and objectivity can be terribly difficult to get one's head around, but if I have any advantage it's just that the idea has been rattling around my head for many years, which do
[/quote]

I am not sure what the S---> O means. It seems to me ideas about what objectivity is include the existence of subjects. That objectivist scientists would not claim they have something that completely eradicates a perceiver with a point of view, but that some things are more objective than others. And also that there is something out there that affects what subjects experience. Like your posts do. Or mine. Of course they are experiences via consciousness, but they limit those consciousnesses' options for experiencing them.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3318
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:01 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am not sure what the S---> O means.

It means subject observes object. What O is depends on what S is.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:38 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am not sure what the S---> O means.

It means subject observes object. What O is depends on what S is.


And you just ignored my point, which is why I was intending on leaving this thread alone.

Let's say that you build a closet, and every perceiving being drops dead instantly... the closet disappears?

There can't be objects without subjects?

What about object permanence? The stage that most people grow out of when they're 2 years old. If a self cleaning vacuum robot turns the corner, does it unexist?

The lack of object permanence is actually on the narcissistic scale of personality disorder
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Silhouette » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:30 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am not sure what the S---> O means.

It means subject observes object. What O is depends on what S is.


And you just ignored my point, which is why I was intending on leaving this thread alone.

Let's say that you build a closet, and every perceiving being drops dead instantly... the closet disappears?

Is it impossible for this to be the case?

Some reasoning to consider after the following analogue: you place a VR headset on, and in front of you appears a closet. At least in the visual sense, the pattern of photons that hit your eyes and the subsequent electrical response that is interpreted by your brain is loaded into computer memory and displayed before you. When you switch off the headset, the closet code is dereferenced and the memory unallocated, ready to be turned into whatever else in future. If you put the headset back on, it'll appear right back in the same place though...

My reasoning: I hope you appreciate that sensory experience occurs entirely in the mind - it appears to take "inputs" commonly thought by the layman to be "from out there", but the exact same experience can be achieved through brain manipulation without any "inputs from out there" at all - only internal tweaking. Dreaming a dream that feels so real at the time is an example of this. Without the mind's involvement, there can be no experience of the closet or anything at all - it's absolutely necessary to the process: the subject, that is, and any supposed objects are in practice optional.

There is no way to prove you are not "a brain in a vat" or "in the matrix" etc. where indeed the closet disappears as soon as every perceiving being drops dead - just like in my VR example.

It's certainly a lot easier, convenient, with extremely sufficient predictive utility, to simply disregard these examples and thought experiments as most people do: living as though such things remain even if all perceivers look away. But when you feel your equilibrioception alter, your muscles contract, such as those of your eyes, neck, face, causing the visual image to change, are you really moving (the layman understanding), or are the objects you perceive moving? An analogue to this is point is two bodies passing each other in space without any other reference point... which is moving? If any? Perhaps it is simply spacetime itself bending? Relativity throws all the layman absolutes out of the water - I'm sorry but it really isn't as simple as your simplistic and common understanding is assuming.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:06 pm

Human beings [ homo sapiens ] have existed for I00 000 years while the Universe has existed for almost I4 billion years
It is therefore demonstrably true that objects have existed without subjects as they have for virtually all of known time

The Universe had to come into existence from its simplest point of origin before something as complex as human beings could be created
It therefore makes absolutely no sense physically or logically to presume that objects can only exist when they are perceived by subjects
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Silhouette » Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:24 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Human beings [ homo sapiens ] have existed for I00 000 years while the Universe has existed for almost I4 billion years
It is therefore demonstrably true that objects have existed without subjects as they have for virtually all of known time

The Universe had to come into existence from its simplest point of origin before something as complex as human beings could be created
It therefore makes absolutely no sense physically or logically to presume that objects can only exist when they are perceived by subjects

Is your 1 key not working? :-"

Who said it existed for I00 000 years? Humans. What does such a human knowledge statement entail? It is the dialectic result of subjective observation and subjective interpretation feeding back on one other - the understanding of what I4 billion years "objectively is" relies on human subjective understanding - it is reflective of a time dynamic that for all we know only makes any sense from within the human subjective framework... which is subject to potentially improve, potentially shedding truer light on what "I4 billion years without subjects" really means. What if we later realise the nature of an error in perception of time that nullifies the subjective understanding of the objective independent of the subject? The fact may remain in tact but reinterpretted in an improved form of subjective understanding where there is no contradiction between subjectivity and objects apparently existing independently when thought of in that old outdated way.

I have no objections to the claim that according to current human knowledge, our best explanation is that objects must have existed for I4 billion years before any subjective mind ever existed to perceive it.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:26 pm

I'm not going to quote the last three replies, but rather respond to the sense of them.

If objects cannot exist without subjects (and a computer is certainly an object), then this suddenly becomes a theistic thread. (Intelligence never began and will never end)

God. Right?

Actually, I have extremely compelling disproofs of such a being, but actually, an all loving god is certainly not a reality I would despise.

The problem is...

I despise this reality. It's violating my consent against my consent, every moment of every day.

One thing that is true of all subjects, is that nobody wants their consent violated against their consent ever. If they agree that they do, then we can easily state that they are not mentally competent. For if someone says this, they just gave the universe permission, in a nanosecond to send them to hell forever. Not a rational trade off for a nano second.

So this is a law.

So the question is "if this is occurring to me now and has my entire life, how can I reasonably assume that this won't happen to me forever, given that all existence is subjective?"
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:57 am

There is no logical connection at all between consent violation and being sent to hell
The Universe does not care about these things because its sole function is to exist and nothing else
Hell is an imaginary concept created by human minds - it has nothing at all to do with the Universe
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:07 am

surreptitious75 wrote:There is no logical connection at all between consent violation and being sent to hell
The Universe does not care about these things because its sole function is to exist and nothing else
Hell is an imaginary concept created by human minds - it has nothing at all to do with the Universe



Two things about this that are wrong.

1.) Consent violation against consent is the definition of hell.

2.) hell exists. It not only exists, as Shakespeare said in a paraphrase, the universe is greater than all of your philosophy. Meaning, there is genius of hell, that not only has never occurred to you, but as you suffer eternal torment, will never occur to you. I know. I've been to hell.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:14 am

Mental hell does exist although only for the ones experiencing it at the time
A real hell that souls suffer in for all of eternity however is pure imagination
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:21 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Mental hell does exist although only for the ones experiencing it at the time
A real hell that souls suffer in for all of eternity however is pure imagination


And according to you, existence is pure imagination.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:26 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Human beings [ homo sapiens ] have existed for I00 000 years while the Universe has existed for almost I4 billion years
It is therefore demonstrably true that objects have existed without subjects as they have for virtually all of known time

The Universe had to come into existence from its simplest point of origin before something as complex as human beings could be created
It therefore makes absolutely no sense physically or logically to presume that objects can only exist when they are perceived by subjects

Nah.
The above is common sense but not philosophically true.

The point is the object and subject co-exists and co-create reality that enable reality-as-it-is to emerge spontaneously.
Here is on example of spontaneous emergence - Einstein Mask in 3D;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORoTCBrCKIQ

To insist the common sense perspective is the truth or absolute truth is purely due to one's psychology.
Note Hume's explanation that the common sense of causation, i.e. cause and effect [that one marble caused the other to move] is due to psychological based on habits, customs and constant conjunctions.

We understand matters of fact according to causation, or cause and effect, such that our experience of one event leads us to assume an unobserved cause. But Hume argues that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:50 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am not sure what the S---> O means.

It means subject observes object. What O is depends on what S is.


And you just ignored my point, which is why I was intending on leaving this thread alone.

Let's say that you build a closet, and every perceiving being drops dead instantly... the closet disappears?

There can't be objects without subjects?

What about object permanence? The stage that most people grow out of when they're 2 years old. If a self cleaning vacuum robot turns the corner, does it unexist?

The lack of object permanence is actually on the narcissistic scale of personality disorder

You're still not understanding that I don't consider subjects to necessarily have minds (nor that "mind" is anything specific to animals). The dead bodies are still subjects, the atoms are subjects, the opposite sides of the closet are subject to each other.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment.[1] Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[2] The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[3][4][5] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:01 pm

And I can simply say, "that's just subjective", using your own logic.

What about Descartes demon?

A being more powerful than all of us who just controls matter to make you believe (and countless others) what they believe?

In a subjective universe, Descartes demon can easily describe the subjectivity of your proof for your belief here. That doesn't rule out objectivity.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:38 pm

Ecmandu wrote:And I can simply say, "that's just subjective", using your own logic.

Right it's subject to the logic.

What about Descartes demon?

A being more powerful than all of us who just controls matter to make you believe (and countless others) what they believe?

That would be the Brahman in Hinduism: the player of all the parts.

In a subjective universe, Descartes demon can easily describe the subjectivity of your proof for your belief here. That doesn't rule out objectivity.

I'm not ruling out objectivity except in terms of logic as I understand it.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Mad Man P » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:42 pm

Hey Ecmandu

The Sky is red, all squares are circles and my pet elephant wrote this message!
Do you think you can prove me wrong?
Well you can't...

Let me show you how this sausage is made:
I've defined red to mean blue, circle to mean any object subject with 4 corners and I call myself "my pet elephant"

You can't win a language game... it produces only losers.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:51 pm

Language is like a finger pointing at the moon.

Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:52 pm

Mad Man P wrote:Hey Ecmandu

The Sky is red, all squares are circles and my pet elephant wrote this message!
Do you think you can prove me wrong?
Well you can't...

Let me show you how this sausage is made:
I've defined red to mean blue, circle to mean any object subject with 4 corners and I call myself "my pet elephant"

You can't win a language game... it produces only losers.


Nah, that's just like solving a crypto quiz in th paper.
Once the substitution is known, it's still easy to communicate. That's why on this board, we make people define their terms in really technical arguments. Instead of assuming we're all using the same definitions.

"So you're linguistic token for blue is red, ok, let's assume that and go from there"
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Mad Man P » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:55 pm

Ecmandu wrote:That's why on this board, we make people define their terms in really technical arguments. Instead of assuming we're all using the same definitions.


I wish that were true.
Enjoy your game.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:01 pm

Mad Man P wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:That's why on this board, we make people define their terms in really technical arguments. Instead of assuming we're all using the same definitions.


I wish that were true.
Enjoy your game.


Much more devastating than that problem is this problem:

"Well, I guess we just agree to disagree"
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:38 pm

This is what subjectivists are doing:

Well it's only subjective that everyone on earth needs to drink water when they're thirsty, to survive a maximum of two weeks.

If everyone NEEDS to do it, it's not subjective, but rather, objective!

"Well, I don't need to drink water to not die of dehydration" (as they're drinking water in front of you)

"It's just subjective that you think you're seeing me drink water right now, I'm really not"

So... there's a meta analysis of this:

Men need to conspicuously consume rationality to appear fit sexually to a female.

Females don't have a motive for self contradiction, they are evil just for evils own sake. You probably could assign a motive, that females don't want to be caught for being so evil, so they gravitate to self contradiction (subjectivity) for that reason.

The short of it is, this behavior can all be explained on a meta level, objectively.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Mad Man P » Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:03 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Much more devastating than that problem is this problem:

"Well, I guess we just agree to disagree"


What if you're stuck in a conversation with a someone too prideful or stubborn to ever admit to any fault... or an idiot?
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:29 pm

Mad Man P wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Much more devastating than that problem is this problem:

"Well, I guess we just agree to disagree"


What if you're stuck in a conversation with a someone too prideful or stubborn to ever admit to any fault... or an idiot?


You have to educate everyone on what it means to assert dominance so that self contradictory people feel self conscious. This era is the renaissance of self contradiction because of the feminist movement.

That's why we have to go through these inane discussions, because self contradiction, cannibalizing rationality is the ornate mating behavior in this species.

They're not debating to get to the truth, they're debating to get laid. Higher stakes for most men.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:21 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Much more devastating than that problem is this problem:

"Well, I guess we just agree to disagree"


What if you're stuck in a conversation with a someone too prideful or stubborn to ever admit to any fault... or an idiot?


You have to educate everyone on what it means to assert dominance so that self contradictory people feel self conscious. This era is the renaissance of self contradiction because of the feminist movement.

That's why we have to go through these inane discussions, because self contradiction, cannibalizing rationality is the ornate mating behavior in this species.

They're not debating to get to the truth, they're debating to get laid. Higher stakes for most men.


I want to back up a bit, that may have been unclear.

I'm not against women's liberation. However, in stating that, as we moved forward with womens liberation, the biggest problem with women was never voiced, (while we've all been told the problems with men) and because of this, we have effectively destroyed the earth.

Women look specifically for self refutation as a sign that a male is more fit.

Had we addressed that globally, we wouldn't be in this shitstorm right now.

Female sexuality fractures community. Community is dependent upon non contradiction.

That's what I meant to say ...

Now, in saying that, males are responsible for their acting out just as females are for only picking those males.

If you know about afterlives as I do, and you look deeply into this problem, you realize that almost everyone dropped the ball here, so, it's prudent if you care about others, to develop systems that bypass the sin here... I.e. Hyperdimensional mirror realities
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:54 am

Ecmandu wrote:This is what subjectivists are doing:

Btw, I would NOT claim to be a subjectivist inclined to subjectivism.

Note;
Image

There is no Yin without Yang within reality-as-it-is.
Just the same as there is no subjectivity without objectivity and vice-versa.
Thus I am not a pure subjectivist but rather a subjectivist-objectivist in complementariness.

The glue that reconcile the two dichotomy subjectivist versus objectivist is Critical Philosophy.

Kant was once a hardcore rationalist [reason prevails over all] until he encountered Hume as a hard core empiricist [experience prevails over all] which then awoke him from his dogmatic slumber stuck to reason alone.
After his 10 years of dogmatic slumber Kant awoke to reconcile the dichotomy with Critical Philosophy and reconciled the "is" and "ought".

It took Kant [one of the greatest W philosophers of all times] 10 years and I took 3+ years full time to understand Kant. Most are stuck in the default of objectivity prevails and it is not easy to get out of the default [due to initial].

Note Kant [para rearranged, edited],

Kant in CPR wrote:They [pure objectivity] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

There will therefore be [are] Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe [pure] Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
B397


It takes a lot of hard work to free oneself from the illusion because the default is so instinctual and ingrained via 3 billion to 6 million of evolutionary solidification.

In any initiation attempt, one will be blasted with initial, cognitive dissonance, activated defense mechanism and pains and thus one will normally fall back to where one is comfortable.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users