Subjectivity versus Objectivity

[gib]

Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. (your pole seems to confirm this. I guess you mean the "poll". Right? <-- Er, uh, yeah.) Even most scientists are subjectivists (No, they r subjective beings, like the rest of us. But I guarantee u, if u asked them, they'd call themselves objectivist Yes, of course, but in reality - objectively - they are subjectivists because they have become corrupt and greedy) - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.

Being corrupt and greedy makes you a subjectivist? Maybe it makes you biased, but being subjectivist just means you believe reality is based on subjective experience. If one becomes greedy and corrupt because they're tempted by money, that just means they can't resist temptation that well. Has nothing to do with how they see the world or what they believe.

I think you're right that objectivity comes out of subjectivity.

That is not what I exactly said. It is easier to be subjective than to be objective. So one may think that objects come out of subjects. But I am saying that the subject-object-relationship is less like the diachronic chicken-and-egg problem but more like the synchronic side-by-side-problem. If there "IS" something, then always according to a subject that refers to an object. Correct! Which of them was first is not decidable. The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a "subject" is, a second one is needed; but a second one is not only the beginning of subjectivity, but also the beginning of objectivity. So the subject and the object began at the same time. But the subject can always be one step ahead when it comes to the identification with the said first one before the second one. Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" assumes that there is a one who thinks, that there is a conclusion and that there is being. If Descartes had been the said first one, then he would have known (in the way we do) nothing about thinking, conclsuion and being.

I don't follow. What do you mean by "the first one of our world" and "a second one is needed"? You mean in order for there to be a subject/object distinction, you need at least two beings? One to be the object being observed, and the second to be the observer?

I think this is true in order to experience an object, but not for something just to be an object. The first thing to exist (if we're reverting to the diachronic chicken-and-egg issue) is an object (that's what a "thing" is). Insofar as it experiences, it is also a subject. As an object, it has the potential to be observed, but it doesn't have to be observed just to be an object. To be a subject, it just has to experience (which implies the experiencing of something, and that something could be said to be a second object).

... it is not opposite. It's like a man color blind to red all of a sudden seeing red and thinking it must b something opposed to color. Subjectivity and objectivity possess opposing characteristics--namely, tendencies towards consensus vs tendencies away from consensus, thereby giving off the illusion of being real vs in the head--but if consciousness and mind are characterized by subjectivity and if objectivity requires consciousness and mind, then objectivity must be a form of subjectivity. Having different characteristics does not make two things opposite.

Epistemologically said, subjectivity and objectivity are oppositions. Epistemologically? For example: the subject is the observing one, the object is the observed one. It is similar to the grammatic active/passive-opposition.

Yes, that's more or less how we define these terms, but that doesn't mean an object can't be a subject at the same time. Nor does it mean something that is objective can't also be subjective.

It's like the relationship between a client and a server. In the context of that relationship, there is the client and then there is the server. They are thought to be different and opposite. But the client could also be a server to someone else, and the server could also be a client to someone else.

I also think the object/subject relationship is subtley different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity. <-- Let's not get confused here.

[Arminius]

Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. (your pole seems to confirm this. I guess you mean the "poll". Right? <-- Er, uh, yeah.) Even most scientists are subjectivists (No, they r subjective beings, like the rest of us. But I guarantee u, if u asked them, they'd call themselves objectivist Yes, of course, but in reality - objectively - they are subjectivists because they have become corrupt and greedy) - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.

Being corrupt and greedy makes you a subjectivist? Maybe it makes you biased, but being subjectivist just means you believe reality is based on subjective experience. If one becomes greedy and corrupt because they're tempted by money, that just means they can't resist temptation that well. Has nothing to do with how they see the world or what they believe.

According to my understanding, scientists have to be objectivists; but when they become corrupt and greedy, so that they depend on their money givers, then they are no objectivists, but subjectivists; because they only say what their money givers want them to say. The methods are the other reason why scientists can and mostly do become subjectivists.

That is not what I exactly said. It is easier to be subjective than to be objective. So one may think that objects come out of subjects. But I am saying that the subject-object-relationship is less like the diachronic chicken-and-egg problem but more like the synchronic side-by-side-problem. If there "IS" something, then always according to a subject that refers to an object. Correct! Which of them was first is not decidable. The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a "subject" is, a second one is needed; but a second one is not only the beginning of subjectivity, but also the beginning of objectivity. So the subject and the object began at the same time. But the subject can always be one step ahead when it comes to the identification with the said first one before the second one. Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" assumes that there is a one who thinks, that there is a conclusion and that there is being. If Descartes had been the said first one, then he would have known (in the way we do) nothing about thinking, conclsuion and being.

I don't follow. What do you mean by "the first one of our world" and "a second one is needed"? You mean in order for there to be a subject/object distinction, you need at least two beings? One to be the object being observed, and the second to be the observer? I think this is true in order to experience an object, but not for something just to be an object. The first thing to exist (if we're reverting to the diachronic chicken-and-egg issue) is an object (that's what a "thing" is). Insofar as it experiences, it is also a subject. As an object, it has the potential to be observed, but it doesn't have to be observed just to be an object. To be a subject, it just has to experience (which implies the experiencing of something, and that something could be said to be a second object).

The words "subject" and "object" are linguistic (grammatic) and philosophic (epistemic) concepts.

... it is not opposite. It's like a man color blind to red all of a sudden seeing red and thinking it must b something opposed to color. Subjectivity and objectivity possess opposing characteristics--namely, tendencies towards consensus vs tendencies away from consensus, thereby giving off the illusion of being real vs in the head--but if consciousness and mind are characterized by subjectivity and if objectivity requires consciousness and mind, then objectivity must be a form of subjectivity. Having different characteristics does not make two things opposite.

Epistemologically said, subjectivity and objectivity are oppositions. Epistemologically? For example: the subject is the observing one, the object is the observed one. It is similar to the grammatic active/passive-opposition.

Yes, that's more or less how we define these terms, but that doesn't mean an object can't be a subject at the same time. Nor does it mean something that is objective can't also be subjective.

It's like the relationship between a client and a server. In the context of that relationship, there is the client and then there is the server. They are thought to be different and opposite. But the client could also be a server to someone else, and the server could also be a client to someone else.

I also think the object/subject relationship is subtley different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity. <-- Let's not get confused here.

The object/subject relationship is different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity and different from the relationship between a subjectivist and an objectivist.

[Kathrina]

Many scientists got fired because they had been objective.

[Arminius]

Many scientists got fired because they had been objective.

Yes.

The enlightenment was the era with the most real or objective scientists. So, one can say: the farther away the enlightenment, the more subjective the scientists.

When science depends on money and on dictating methods, then science is almost always very much more subjective than objective, because there are almost always subjective interests behind the money and the methods. Only those money givers who have interests in science as an institution of objectivity are friends of science, of objectivity; and only those methods that do not depend on subjective interests are no dictating methods.

[gib]

The point that I am trying to make is that the word "real" refers to a category of assumptions that have the potential to influence our behavior.

The only way I can interpret this is: the word "real" refers to the truths we believe in. I agree that reality encompasses truth, but it also encompasses objects. "Real" also refers to things we see right in front of us.

What you're doing here, it appears to me, is you're trying to take the word "real" out of its context. You are trying to make it independent from human judgment. Which it is not. The word "real" is a label that is attached by humans to certain things (namely, assumptions) based on some set of rules. It is a word that refers to assumptions that have the potential to influence our behavior. And it is people who decide what assumptions have the potential to influence their behavior and what assumptions don't. And they do so based on some set of rules. A lot of people do it by employing inductive reasoning. They look at the evidence they have, and then, based on it, they assign probability values to assumptions. But there are also people who do it based on their desires. An example would be a person who assumes he will become rich within next couple of years, not because his past experience suggests it, but merely because he wants it to happen. Every assumption has some sort of origin and based on that origin it can be categorized as either evidence-dependent or evidence-independent. The two terms translate to objective and subjective. That's what objectivity and subjectivity really mean. Well, I'll agree they're somewhat correlated. They are epistemological concepts. They are not ontological concepts. In the same way that reductionism and atomism are epistemological (see Bertrand Russell's logical atomism) rather than ontological (see Democritus and other varieties of physical atomism.)

As I said before, I'm not interested in disputing what is real and what isn't. I try not to deviate too much from common sense in my assessment of what's real and what isn't (which is why I told you the examples I'll bring up for what's real and what isn't won't be all that different from what the common man will bring up). But I will dispute what makes it real and what doesn't. I don't think this counts as taking the word "real" out of context, except in the sense that it changes what we mean by "real", but still not in such a way that we change what we think is real.

Reality is a reference to the category of assumptions that has the potential to affect one's behavior. That's what it is. Very simple. When you say "this is reality" what you are saying is "this assumption has the potential to influence my behavior". Similarly, when you say "this is NOT reality" what you are saying is "this assumption has no potential to influence my behavior". That's all these words mean.

All assumptions are about reality. Saying "I assume X is the case" is the same as saying "I assume X is the case in reality." If I believe in God, then that's an assumption that effects my behavior (I might prey more). If I don't believe in God, then that's an assumption that effects my behavior (I won't prey). In both cases, my assumptions effect my behavior. There's no such thing as an assumption that doesn't effect behavior.

You are making a mistake in thinking that "what exists" is separate from "what one thinks exists". It is not. You cannot say that something exists without it begin something that you think exists. It's very difficult for people to accept that their opinions are merely their personal opinions and not an exact or an inexact reflection of some never-changing state of affairs. People don't like fallibility. They cannot consider the possibility that what they are doing might turn out to be a mistake. They prefer to think that will keep doing what they are doing for all eternity.

I'm a relativist, so I'm quite comfortable with the notion that what exists depends on one's experience (sometimes on what one thinks), but we need to be more precise in our language here. When you say it's a mistake to think "what exists" is separate from "what one thinks exists," I can easily refute that by saying Santa Clause doesn't exist even though a child may think he does exist. But if you were to say it's a mistake to think what exists relative to a person is separate from what that person thinks exists, then I'll agree. I'd say that Santa Clause doesn't exist relative to me, but he does exist relative to the child. If I disagree with you about whether the world of Star Wars exists, it's because I'm speaking on behalf of my own views (I don't believe the Death Star exists, for example), even though I'd fully agree that relative to you the world of Star Wars exists (if that's what you really believe). But it's pretty standard in philosophy to speak on behalf of your own views, so even as a relativist, I won't readily sanction everyone else's view just because it's technically true that those views are true relative to them. I'll speak from my own views and allow the relativistic language remain implicit.

[gib]

According to my understanding, scientists have to be objectivists; but when they become corrupt and greedy, so that they depend on their money givers, then they are no objectivists, but subjectivists; because they only say what their money givers want them to say. The methods are the other reason why scientists can and mostly do become subjectivists.

I understand what you're saying. When scientists are pressured to generate the results that their money givers paid them to generate, they become less reliant on the standard objective methods that science is normally based on. I suppose in a sense that makes them more subjectivists, but I wouldn't say it means they believe their results are true because they believe in them or that they feel it's true. If they believe in the results at all (in these kinds of situations, they may just lie with a guilty conscience), it would be based on a different set of subjective experiences than the standard scientific ones (pressure to deliver what they were paid to deliver rather than objective observations and measurements), but even the standard scientific methods are based on subjectivity as far as I'm concerned. Remember, I'm saying that there is a subset of subjective experiences which also count as objective. Scientific observation and measure are examples of these. They are subjective because they are grounded in experience, but objective because they are typically met with unanimous consensus among all other scientists who also make the same observations and measurements. I will agree that when corrupted by greed and pressure from money givers, scientists tend to become only subjective, but even then not necessarily in terms of their beliefs but rather their methods.

I don't follow. What do you mean by "the first one of our world" and "a second one is needed"? You mean in order for there to be a subject/object distinction, you need at least two beings? One to be the object being observed, and the second to be the observer? I think this is true in order to experience an object, but not for something just to be an object. The first thing to exist (if we're reverting to the diachronic chicken-and-egg issue) is an object (that's what a "thing" is). Insofar as it experiences, it is also a subject. As an object, it has the potential to be observed, but it doesn't have to be observed just to be an object. To be a subject, it just has to experience (which implies the experiencing of something, and that something could be said to be a second object).

The words "subject" and "object" are linguistic (grammatic) and philosophic (epistemic) concepts.

Sure they are, but that doesn't address our disagreement (if there is one). My main point is that objectivity is a special case of subjectivity, not an opposite. Your main point seems to be that they are opposite, and that this is decided as a matter of language. We define subjectivity and objectivity as opposites. I agree that this is how we define these terms, but there are also instances of subjectivity and objectivity themselves (not just words and definitions), and when I look at these, I find they aren't always opposite. I conclude that we've got the definitions wrong (at least insofar as we're defining them in terms of opposites: i.e. objectivity is defined as the opposite of subjectivity). This can happen sometimes. Definitions aren't always just a matter of how we choose to construct our language. They are sometimes a matter of things in the world, and experiences we can have. We sometimes draw our definitions from how we describe these things, how they feel to us, and what we understand about them. So I'm saying that I think we can question the conventional definitions of subjectivity and objectivity because we can have subjective and objective experiences, we can examine these experiences and draw conclusions about their nature, and thereby rethink our definitions. In my experience with subjectivity and objectivity, I find there are many example in which they overlap, so I disagree that they are opposite.

The object/subject relationship is different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity and different from the relationship between a subjectivist and an objectivist.

Right, so are we agreeing or disagreeing?

[Arminius]

According to my understanding, scientists have to be objectivists; but when they become corrupt and greedy, so that they depend on their money givers, then they are no objectivists, but subjectivists; because they only say what their money givers want them to say. The methods are the other reason why scientists can and mostly do become subjectivists.

I understand what you're saying. When scientists are pressured to generate the results that their money givers paid them to generate, they become less reliant on the standard objective methods that science is normally based on. I suppose in a sense that makes them more subjectivists, but I wouldn't say it means they believe their results are true because they believe in them or that they feel it's true. If they believe in the results at all (in these kinds of situations, they may just lie with a guilty conscience), it would be based on a different set of subjective experiences than the standard scientific ones (pressure to deliver what they were paid to deliver rather than objective observations and measurements), but even the standard scientific methods are based on subjectivity as far as I'm concerned. Remember, I'm saying that there is a subset of subjective experiences which also count as objective. Scientific observation and measure are examples of these. They are subjective because they are grounded in experience, but objective because they are typically met with unanimous consensus among all other scientists who also make the same observations and measurements. I will agree that when corrupted by greed and pressure from money givers, scientists tend to become only subjective, but even then not necessarily in terms of their beliefs but rather their methods.

I don't follow. What do you mean by "the first one of our world" and "a second one is needed"? You mean in order for there to be a subject/object distinction, you need at least two beings? One to be the object being observed, and the second to be the observer? I think this is true in order to experience an object, but not for something just to be an object. The first thing to exist (if we're reverting to the diachronic chicken-and-egg issue) is an object (that's what a "thing" is). Insofar as it experiences, it is also a subject. As an object, it has the potential to be observed, but it doesn't have to be observed just to be an object. To be a subject, it just has to experience (which implies the experiencing of something, and that something could be said to be a second object).

The words "subject" and "object" are linguistic (grammatic) and philosophic (epistemic) concepts.

Sure they are, but that doesn't address our disagreement (if there is one). My main point is that objectivity is a special case of subjectivity, not an opposite. Your main point seems to be that they are opposite, and that this is decided as a matter of language. We define subjectivity and objectivity as opposites. I agree that this is how we define these terms, but there are also instances of subjectivity and objectivity themselves (not just words and definitions), and when I look at these, I find they aren't always opposite. I conclude that we've got the definitions wrong (at least insofar as we're defining them in terms of opposites: i.e. objectivity is defined as the opposite of subjectivity). This can happen sometimes. Definitions aren't always just a matter of how we choose to construct our language. They are sometimes a matter of things in the world, and experiences we can have. We sometimes draw our definitions from how we describe these things, how they feel to us, and what we understand about them. So I'm saying that I think we can question the conventional definitions of subjectivity and objectivity because we can have subjective and objective experiences, we can examine these experiences and draw conclusions about their nature, and thereby rethink our definitions. In my experience with subjectivity and objectivity, I find there are many example in which they overlap, so I disagree that they are opposite.

The object/subject relationship is different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity and different from the relationship between a subjectivist and an objectivist.

Right, so are we agreeing or disagreeing?

We are much more agreeing than disagreeing.

I would say that I am more an objectivist than a subjectivist. And you have said that you are more a subjectivist than an objectivist.

On average, the subjectivist/objectivist distribution is not 50%/50% (as certain people probably expect), but perhaps about 80%/20%. Instead of 80%/20% one could also say 8/2, at least when it comes to the self-evaluation I posted 16 days ago:

What is your self-evaluation?

SUBJECTIVE: 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10
OBJECTIVE : 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10

[Meno_]

Personal self evaluation in terms of the subject(ive) object(ive) configuration, seems as if it’s based on a functional derivative, where the values are never a constant.

At times an individual becomes more objective, where the referential route is either mitigated, or suppressed within situ.

At times when binary systems prevelant in a reduced set of circumstances\implying a relaxation of censure, or pressured bias, or loss infringement of societal conformation pressure, = then the shift toward more opiniated expression becomes possible.

So called objectivist or subjectivist persons can with the change of venue, develop an ever shifting self opinion on the scale. Self analysis can be the result of continuous change caused by multi functionally derived opinions based on some kind of averaging of both kinds of personal assessment.

This may work only in people with fairly stable and predictable functionally derived sets of opinions, far from approaching a stable automatic set.

How to judge or evaluate ones self where the values of stability, etc., are not consistent within parameters, carry an equivalent uncertainty about them. I would, therefore, not hazard to evaluate mysel in any case, prone more to the doubt which beset one who feels they are being objective, but have no commensurate information to judge by. In order to do that,one would, instead, have to rely on outsider sources of comparable objective criteria.

Bottom line is a variable matrix of fairly predictable self regard, but without the qualifying signification.

I would go further than merely indicate percentages between the two types of character types, it would seem that when such becomes improbable, is, when the difference between them is at a minimum.

[Arminius]

In this case, it does not matter whether there is a variation or not, because we have to relate to likelihood and to average values anyway.

[Magnus Anderson]

When you say it's a mistake to think "what exists" is separate from "what one thinks exists," I can easily refute that by saying Santa Clause doesn't exist even though a child may think he does exist.

That would be "what Gib thinks exists" versus "what a child thinks exists". That is not "what exists (independently from what anyone thinks)" versus "what a child thinks exists". To think that "what Gib exists" is the same as "what exists (independently from what anyone thinks exists)" is to eliminate Gib from the equation i.e. it is to take things out of context.

It is true that what one man thinks exists is separate from what another man thinks exists. However, it is not true that what exists is separate from what someone thinks exists. For example, when you say "Santa Claus does not exist" what you are saying is "Gib thinks that Santa Claus does not exist". We remove "I think" from the sentence for the sake of convenience (imagine if we had to preface each one of our statements with "I think" or "In my opinion...") and not because the sentence reflects something that is independent from what we think.

I'd say that Santa Clause doesn't exist relative to me, but he does exist relative to the child.

That's true.

But it's pretty standard in philosophy to speak on behalf of your own views, so even as a relativist, I won't readily sanction everyone else's view just because it's technically true that those views are true relative to them. I'll speak from my own views and allow the relativistic language remain implicit.

Exactly. That's the difference between relativism and egalitarianism. Relativism merely claims that truth is relative to one's viewpoint (i.e. method of reasoning and experience.) Egalitarianism claims that anything goes i.e. that every possibility is equal to every other. Since possibilities are equiprobable, what you believe is insignificant. This means that other things, such as social cohesion, can take priority and dictate what you're going to believe.

The only way I can interpret this is: the word "real" refers to the truths we believe in. I agree that reality encompasses truth, but it also encompasses objects. "Real" also refers to things we see right in front of us.

What's the point of saying that what you see in front of you is real? Is there a situation in which it makes sense to say that what you see in front of you is not real?

It is assumptions that are either real or not. Consider the work of an illusionist. Whatever you see in front of you (e.g. a woman cut in half) is neither real nor unreal. Rather, it is your assumptions about what goes behind the scenes that are either real or unreal. For example, you might think that at the point in time when the woman appears to be cut in half that her torso is physically cut in half and that she is therefore dead. But if you were to peek behind the scenes you'd see that's not the case.

All assumptions are about reality. Saying "I assume X is the case" is the same as saying "I assume X is the case in reality."

Assumptions are about what we did not experience.
There are two types of assumptions: predictions and retrodictions.
Predictions are about what we have yet to experience.
Retrodictions are about what we haven't experienced in the past (they are also about what we did experience in the past, but we can ignore that.)

Ultimately, the purpose of assumptions is to predict the future, so retrodictions are subservient to predictions.

You can use the word "reality" if you want to but it introduces vagueness. Why say that assumptions are about reality when you can simply and clearly say that assumptions are about what we did not experience?

If I believe in God, then that's an assumption that effects my behavior (I might prey more). If I don't believe in God, then that's an assumption that effects my behavior (I won't prey). In both cases, my assumptions effect my behavior. There's no such thing as an assumption that doesn't effect behavior.

Does that mean there is no such a thing as an event that does not have an effect?

What does it mean for an event to have an effect?
It means that you can predict some other event based on it, right?
If there is no such an event, then it has no effect.

[gib]

That would be "what Gib thinks exists" versus "what a child thinks exists". That is not "what exists (independently from what anyone thinks)" versus "what a child thinks exists". To think that "what Gib exists" is the same as "what exists (independently from what anyone thinks exists)" is to eliminate Gib from the equation i.e. it is to take things out of context.

So if gib says "Santa Clause doesn't exist," then in reality (independently from what anyone thinks exists) Santa Clause actually does exist?

You know that things can be true according to a certain person and at the same time be true in reality (independently from what anyone thinks exists), right?

However, it is not true that what exists is separate from what someone thinks exists.

But I thought you just said:

That would be "what Gib thinks exists" versus "what a child thinks exists". That is not "what exists (independently from what anyone thinks)" versus "what a child thinks exists".

For example, when you say "Santa Claus does not exist" what you are saying is "Gib thinks that Santa Claus does not exist". We remove "I think" from the sentence for the sake of convenience (imagine if we had to preface each one of our statements with "I think" or "In my opinion...") and not because the sentence reflects something that is independent from what we think.

Well, the only thing I can conclude from this is that we cannot speak of that which exists independently of what I (or you, or him, or her, etc.) think exists. But then why bring up the distinction at all? If I say "X exist," what's the point of saying: that just means "Gib thinks X exists," which is different from saying "X exists independently of what anyone thinks"?

Exactly. That's the difference between relativism and egalitarianism. Relativism merely claims that truth is relative to one's viewpoint (i.e. method of reasoning and experience.) Egalitarianism claims that anything goes i.e. that every possibility is equal to every other. Allowing for contradictions, you mean? Since possibilities are equiprobable, what you believe is insignificant. This means that other things, such as social cohesion, can take priority and dictate what you're going to believe.

I'm not sure how an egalitarian philosophy would pan out socially and politically, but let me get this straight (if we can go on a temporary tangent). So formally speaking, egalitarianism is the philosophy that all points of view are equally valid. If it's not a form of relativism, then all such points of view would have to be equally valid all at once, which obviously allows for contradictions. I don't quite see how this necessarily leads to social cohesion being the top priority unless such an egalitarian landscape makes way for Darwinian modes of competition between points of view, in which case the strongest survive. But this is a social dynamic, not a logical/philosophical outcome of egalitarianism itself.

What's the point of saying that what you see in front of you is real? Gee, I can't think of any. Is there a situation in which it makes sense to say that what you see in front of you is not real?

Other than hallucinations, mirages, and dreams? Nope. But I can imagine tons of situations in which it makes sense to say that what I see in front of me is real. This very discussion, for example. For another example, affirming rumors about sitings of Bigfoot. If I see him, I'm going to report back that what I saw is real.

It is assumptions that are either real or not. Consider the work of an illusionist. Whatever you see in front of you (e.g. a woman cut in half) is neither real nor unreal. Rather, it is your assumptions about what goes behind the scenes that are either real or unreal. I can assure you, whatever I'm looking at is real. For example, you might think that at the point in time when the woman appears to be cut in half that her torso is physically cut in half and that she is therefore dead. But if you were to peek behind the scenes you'd see that's not the case.

Still, whatever I saw is real. Yes, this is accompanied by assumptions that determine how I interpret what I see, and those assumptions can change as a result of different things I see (seeing what happens behind the scenes, for example). One minute, I believe that the woman is sawed in half, the next, I believe it is a trick. But it doesn't change what I saw. And when such a change in assumptions occurs, it can again be explained with relativism. Relative to my first set of assumptions, the woman was sawed in half. But relative to my second set of assumptions, it was just a trick.

Assumptions are about what we did not experience.
There are two types of assumptions: predictions and retrodictions.
Predictions are about what we have yet to experience.
Retrodictions are about what we haven't experienced in the past (they are also about what we did experience in the past, but we can ignore that.)

Still, saying "I assume X is the case" is the same as saying "I assume X is the case in reality."

Ultimately, the purpose of assumptions is to predict the future, so retrodictions are subservient to predictions.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean assumptions are about the future.

You can use the word "reality" if you want to but it introduces vagueness. Why say that assumptions are about reality when you can simply and clearly say that assumptions are about what we did not experience?

Because those aren't nearly the same thing. I haven't experienced Santa Clause. Doesn't mean I assume he exists.

But that's not the point. I wasn't talking about what assumptions are about. I was talking about what the word "real" refers to. I was saying that "real" sometimes refers to objects. I was effectively cutting assumptions out of the picture.

Does that mean there is no such a thing as an event that does not have an effect?

I'm almost tempted to say no. It can almost be said that events are defined by effect. What is an event if not a series of continuous effects one upon another?

What does it mean for an event to have an effect?
It means that you can predict some other event based on it, right? Sure, if that effect is consistent.
If there is no such an event, then it has no effect.

That's right. Which supports my point: if an assumption is that which effects behavior, then there is no such thing as an assumption that has no effect.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Everything is subjective, saying something is objective is a waste of breathe.

We live inside a first person camera of our bodies.

It really is that simple.

And we wasted 1000 years making it sound complicated.

[Magnus Anderson]

So if gib says "Santa Clause doesn't exist," then in reality (independently from what anyone thinks exists) Santa Clause actually does exist?

In order to say that in reality, independently from what anyone thinks, Santa Claus actually does exist you must accept that "independently from what anyone thinks" is a meaningful statement. Which I don't. It's a meaningless statement that was invented by people who, lacking in experience, have no choice but to literally interpret other people's statements that must be interpreted laterally in order to extract any meaning from them.

Santa Claus is neither existent nor non-existent independently from what anyone thinks. Rather, what we have is people thinking that Santa Claus is either existent or non-existent. In other words, whether Santa claus exists or not depends on what the one choosing between the two options thinks. But that does not mean that people necessarily choose what they are going to believe based on what they want to believe. For example, I think that if I cut my wrist and let it bleed that I will die. Even though this is not what I want to happen. I'd rather stay alive.

You know that things can be true according to a certain person and at the same time be true in reality (independently from what anyone thinks exists), right?

There is a difference between what one expects will happen (map) and what will in fact happen (territory.) It is one thing to expect, for example, that it will rain on Monday and another thing to see with your eyes that it is raining on Monday. Note that both of these are subject-dependent. It is the subject that expects and it is the subject who sees with his own eyes. Removing the subject from your statements does not change the fact that each one of these actions is subject-dependent.

Well, the only thing I can conclude from this is that we cannot speak of that which exists independently of what I (or you, or him, or her, etc.) think exists. But then why bring up the distinction at all? If I say "X exist," what's the point of saying: that just means "Gib thinks X exists," which is different from saying "X exists independently of what anyone thinks"?

Because other people make such a distinction and you want to deny it.

The distinction between "that which exists (independently from what anyone thinks)" and "that which some person thinks exists" is a spurious one. It only exists in language. Outside of language, there is no such a distinction.

I don't make such a distinction. Other people do. And if you want to address them, you have no choice but to make such a distinction yourself in order to be able to deny it.

Is there a situation in which it makes sense to say that what you see in front of you is not real?

Other than hallucinations, mirages, and dreams? Nope.

Hallucinations, mirages and dreams are not unreal. Rather, it is our assumptions that they extend in ways that they actually don't that are unreal.

But I can imagine tons of situations in which it makes sense to say that what I see in front of me is real. This very discussion, for example. For another example, affirming rumors about sitings of Bigfoot. If I see him, I'm going to report back that what I saw is real.

That's language. Language is flexible. Words are largely ambiguous on their own i.e. they have more than one meaning. The word "break" for example has 40 meanings or so. Words generally don't have much meaning on their own. Most of their meaning comes from context. You need to put them in context.

And unlike what JSS is telling you, this discussion isn't about language. It is about how things work. It's about phenomena.

Still, whatever I saw is real.

I saw a woman yesterday and she was a "real" woman in the sense that she had all of the things I expect in a woman.

You are missing the point.

And when such a change in assumptions occurs, it can again be explained with relativism. Relative to my first set of assumptions, the woman was sawed in half. But relative to my second set of assumptions, it was just a trick.

That's true.

Still, saying "I assume X is the case" is the same as saying "I assume X is the case in reality."

Yes. The only difference is that the former is succint.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean assumptions are about the future.

They are not. They can be about past. They can also be timeless (as in the case of agents that employ what I call atemporal intelligence that operates on atemporal data, but that's too strange in relation to how necessary it is in order to demonstrate my point.)

Because those aren't nearly the same thing. I haven't experienced Santa Clause. Doesn't mean I assume he exists.

Nowhere is it implied that if you don't experience something that you assume that it exists. If that were the case, there wouldn't be much point to assumptions.

I'm almost tempted to say no. It can almost be said that events are defined by effect. What is an event if not a series of continuous effects one upon another?

Events are not defined by effect. You can have events without any notion of cause-and-effect.

That's right. Which supports my point: if an assumption is that which effects behavior, then there is no such thing as an assumption that has no effect.

There is such a thing as an assumption that has no effect on behavior. This is pretty much indisputable. I don't think it's fruitful to discuss it in depth.

Let's just say that at the present moment in time the assumption that there is a bomb planted in my house has no effect on my behavior. This means it is not motivating me to do something about it (e.g. defuse it or run away from my house.)

[gib]

In order to say that in reality, independently from what anyone thinks, Santa Claus actually does exist you must accept that "independently from what anyone thinks" is a meaningful statement. Which I don't. It's a meaningless statement that was invented by people who, lacking in experience, have no choice but to literally interpret other people's statements that must be interpreted laterally in order to extract any meaning from them.

That last part is a bit of a convoluted sentence, but I think I see where we differ. To me, "independently from what anyone thinks" is a meaningful sentence insofar as I can imagine states of reality and contrast those with thoughts in people's heads. I can imagine that all such thoughts--that is, in everyone's head--differ from the state of reality. <-- But this is a thought experiment. In the thought experiment, I don't have to imagine myself as generating that state of reality. I can imagine myself as one of the oblivious dopes who carry mistaken thoughts about reality. The me who is generating this reality (i.e. the reality which is dependent on me) is the me in the real world, but it's trivially obvious that a reality in a thought experiment is dependent on the one conjuring up the thought experiment.

But in any case, the point is that I don't have to believe a sentence in order for it to be meaningful to me--I just have to be able to imagine a scenario in which the sentence makes sense.

Santa Claus is neither existent nor non-existent independently from what anyone thinks. Rather, what we have is people thinking that Santa Claus is either existent or non-existent. In other words, whether Santa claus exists or not depends on what the one choosing between the two options thinks. But that does not mean that people necessarily choose what they are going to believe based on what they want to believe. For example, I think that if I cut my wrist and let it bleed that I will die. Even though this is not what I want to happen. I'd rather stay alive.

So what's your response when I say: Santa Clause is real according to the child but not real according to me?

And then, what's your response when I say: Santa Clause isn't real?

Can I not argue that "Santa Clause isn't real" = "Santa Clause isn't real according to me"?

Why do you insist that, when I say it, "Santa Clause isn't real" = "Santa Clause isn't real independent of what anyone thinks"?

There is a difference between what one expects will happen (map) and what will in fact happen (territory.) Of course, but unless the map is wrong, there will always be a one-to-one match between the map and the terrain. It is one thing to expect, for example, that it will rain on Monday and another thing to see with your eyes that it is raining on Monday. Note that both of these are subject-dependent. It is the subject that expects and it is the subject who sees with his own eyes. Removing the subject from your statements does not change the fact that each one of these actions is subject-dependent.

Well, this just means the map and the terrain are both subject dependent. But the map can still be accurate. Or if we take someone else's map (someone else's expectations) which happen not to be accurate, then we can say that what exists on the terrain is different (independent of) from what that person expects.

The distinction between "that which exists (independently from what anyone thinks)" and "that which some person thinks exists" is a spurious one. It only exists in language. Outside of language, there is no such a distinction.

You're the one saying that "that which exists (independently from what anyone thinks)" is meaningless. If there's no distinction between that and "that which some person thinks exists" then the latter is meaningless too.

I don't make such a distinction. Other people do. And if you want to address them, you have no choice but to make such a distinction yourself in order to be able to deny it.

I don't deny there's a distinction in the meaning. I merely say that when something is the case according to you, that's usually the same as you saying something is the case independently from what anyone thinks.

Hallucinations, mirages and dreams are not unreal. Rather, it is our assumptions that they extend in ways that they actually don't that are unreal.

Extend meaning what? That they are real outside our perception of them?

If you want to say that hallucinations, mirages, and dreams are real in the sense that one actaully experiences them, then of course they're real! But you know that's not what I meant. And you know it's a perfectly good example of a situation in which it makes sense to say they're not real.

But I can imagine tons of situations in which it makes sense to say that what I see in front of me is real. This very discussion, for example. For another example, affirming rumors about sitings of Bigfoot. If I see him, I'm going to report back that what I saw is real.

That's language. Language is flexible. Words are largely ambiguous on their own i.e. they have more than one meaning. The word "break" for example has 40 meanings or so. Words generally don't have much meaning on their own. Most of their meaning comes from context. You need to put them in context.

What's missing from the context? I see Bigfoot, I report that Bigfoot is real.

And unlike what JSS is telling you, this discussion isn't about language. It is about how things work. It's about phenomena.

We're discussing the difference in meaning between "X is true," "X is true independently of what anyone thinks," "X is true according to me," etc. We're discussing what the word "real" refers to <-- If that's not about language, I don't know what is. Once we've established what these terms mean, we can move on to talk about phenomena (or subjectivity vs. objectivity) which is the main point of this thread.

I saw a woman yesterday and she was a "real" woman in the sense that she had all of the things I expect in a woman.

You are missing the point.

I know what your point is. You're saying that the word "real" refers to assumptions. I'm saying that it sometimes refers to objects. Assumptions can enter the picture and taint how we see objects, but when we say, "That object is real," we are not saying "The assumption in my head is real."

Events are not defined by effect. You can have events without any notion of cause-and-effect.

I suppose this is true if you have a series of spontaneous happenings with no causal explanation whatsoever, but this is typically not how our world works.

There is such a thing as an assumption that has no effect on behavior. <-- Are you contradicting yourself now? This is pretty much indisputable. I don't think it's fruitful to discuss it in depth.

I agree. If in one moment you say assumptions are that which have an effect on your behavior, and now you say there are assumptions that have no effect on your behavior, then it's pretty fruitless to discuss.

Let's just say that at the present moment in time the assumption that there is a bomb planted in my house has no effect on my behavior. This means it is not motivating me to do something about it (e.g. defuse it or run away from my house.)

Are you saying that assumptions which you don't hold have no effect on your behavior?

[James S Saint]

Everything is subjective, saying something is objective is a waste of breathe.

That is only subjectively true, not absolutely.

[Magnus Anderson]

To me, "independently from what anyone thinks" is a meaningful sentence

Any sentence can be meaningful if you give it some meaning.

I can imagine states of reality and contrast those with thoughts in people's heads. I can imagine that all such thoughts--that is, in everyone's head--differ from the state of reality.

You are comparing an imagination (the imagined state of reality) against other imaginations (those that reflect what other people believe is true.)

Is that what you're saying?

But this is a thought experiment. In the thought experiment, I don't have to imagine myself as generating that state of reality.

Yes. But that does not change the fact that that state of reality is in fact an imagination that was generated by you.

When you watch a movie or play a video game you forget about the fact that it is only a simulation, right? You start believing it is a reality, right? But that does not change the fact that it is not reality.

But in any case, the point is that I don't have to believe a sentence in order for it to be meaningful to me--I just have to be able to imagine a scenario in which the sentence makes sense.

Yes. But there are people who take words literally. As a consequence, they deny that what we say is true is merely our opinion about what is true.

Can I not argue that "Santa Clause isn't real" = "Santa Clause isn't real according to me"?

You can. That's what most of us do anyways.

Why do you insist that, when I say it, "Santa Clause isn't real" = "Santa Clause isn't real independent of what anyone thinks"?

Let's see. Earlier you said:

When you say it's a mistake to think "what exists" is separate from "what one thinks exists," I can easily refute that by saying Santa Clause doesn't exist even though a child may think he does exist.

Basically, you denied that "what exists" is the same as "what one thinks exists".

Well, this just means the map and the terrain are both subject dependent. But the map can still be accurate. Or if we take someone else's map (someone else's expectations) which happen not to be accurate, then we can say that what exists on the terrain is different (independent of) from what that person expects.

Yes. Our predictions can turn out to be correct. However, before the event that we are trying to predict happens, the correctness of our prediction is measured in relation to what happened in the past.

You're the one saying that "that which exists (independently from what anyone thinks)" is meaningless.

It is meaningless if you take it literally.

If there's no distinction between that and "that which some person thinks exists" then the latter is meaningless too.

It is not. The meaning of the first statement is the same as that of the second. That's my point. But not everyone sees it this way. Moreover, it's not always the case . . .

I merely say that when something is the case according to you, that's usually the same as you saying something is the case independently from what anyone thinks.

What people mean when they say "truth is independent from what anyone thinks" is that "truth is dependent on evidence".
Interestingly, evidence is subject-dependent, but that's not a problem.

The point is that you can have thoughts that are not backed up by evidence i.e. thoughts that are nothing more than wishful thinking.

[Arminius]

According to my understanding, scientists have to be objectivists; but when they become corrupt and greedy, so that they depend on their money givers, then they are no objectivists, but subjectivists; because they only say what their money givers want them to say. The methods are the other reason why scientists can and mostly do become subjectivists.

I understand what you're saying. When scientists are pressured to generate the results that their money givers paid them to generate, they become less reliant on the standard objective methods that science is normally based on. I suppose in a sense that makes them more subjectivists, but I wouldn't say it means they believe their results are true because they believe in them or that they feel it's true. If they believe in the results at all (in these kinds of situations, they may just lie with a guilty conscience), it would be based on a different set of subjective experiences than the standard scientific ones (pressure to deliver what they were paid to deliver rather than objective observations and measurements), but even the standard scientific methods are based on subjectivity as far as I'm concerned. Remember, I'm saying that there is a subset of subjective experiences which also count as objective. Scientific observation and measure are examples of these. They are subjective because they are grounded in experience, but objective because they are typically met with unanimous consensus among all other scientists who also make the same observations and measurements. I will agree that when corrupted by greed and pressure from money givers, scientists tend to become only subjective, but even then not necessarily in terms of their beliefs but rather their methods.

I don't follow. What do you mean by "the first one of our world" and "a second one is needed"? You mean in order for there to be a subject/object distinction, you need at least two beings? One to be the object being observed, and the second to be the observer? I think this is true in order to experience an object, but not for something just to be an object. The first thing to exist (if we're reverting to the diachronic chicken-and-egg issue) is an object (that's what a "thing" is). Insofar as it experiences, it is also a subject. As an object, it has the potential to be observed, but it doesn't have to be observed just to be an object. To be a subject, it just has to experience (which implies the experiencing of something, and that something could be said to be a second object).

The words "subject" and "object" are linguistic (grammatic) and philosophic (epistemic) concepts.

Sure they are, but that doesn't address our disagreement (if there is one). My main point is that objectivity is a special case of subjectivity, not an opposite. Your main point seems to be that they are opposite, and that this is decided as a matter of language. We define subjectivity and objectivity as opposites. I agree that this is how we define these terms, but there are also instances of subjectivity and objectivity themselves (not just words and definitions), and when I look at these, I find they aren't always opposite. I conclude that we've got the definitions wrong (at least insofar as we're defining them in terms of opposites: i.e. objectivity is defined as the opposite of subjectivity). This can happen sometimes. Definitions aren't always just a matter of how we choose to construct our language. They are sometimes a matter of things in the world, and experiences we can have. We sometimes draw our definitions from how we describe these things, how they feel to us, and what we understand about them. So I'm saying that I think we can question the conventional definitions of subjectivity and objectivity because we can have subjective and objective experiences, we can examine these experiences and draw conclusions about their nature, and thereby rethink our definitions. In my experience with subjectivity and objectivity, I find there are many example in which they overlap, so I disagree that they are opposite.

The object/subject relationship is different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity and different from the relationship between a subjectivist and an objectivist.

Right, so are we agreeing or disagreeing?

We are much more agreeing than disagreeing.

I would say that I am more an objectivist than a subjectivist. And you have said that you are more a subjectivist than an objectivist.

On average, the subjectivist/objectivist distribution is not 50%/50% (as certain people probably expect), but perhaps about 80%/20%. Instead of 80%/20% one could also say 8/2, at least when it comes to the self-evaluation I posted 16 days ago:

What is your self-evaluation?

SUBJECTIVE: 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10
OBJECTIVE : 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10

We all are subjective anyway (but that does of course not necessarily mean that we all are subjectivists). So when I say "I am an objectivist", I just mean that the objective part of my inner subjective/objective dualism is above average (whatever that means ).

[Magnus Anderson]

Continuing my response to gib.
PART I

Hallucinations, mirages and dreams are not unreal. Rather, it is our assumptions that they extend in ways that they actually don't that are unreal.

Extend meaning what? That they are real outside our perception of them?

Yes, you can put it that way.

If you want to say that hallucinations, mirages, and dreams are real in the sense that one actaully experiences them, then of course they're real! But you know that's not what I meant. And you know it's a perfectly good example of a situation in which it makes sense to say they're not real.

Yes, I know. We say that dreams are not real all of the time. And we make a legitimate point by doing so. However, at the same time, we say that dreams are real because they are something that we experience. And we also make a legitimate point when we do so. The question that I am interested in is what exactly is the difference between the two kinds of real? Why do we say that dreams are unreal rather than real? What causes us to do so? And why do we say that dreams are also real rather than unreal? What causes us to do so?

One of the reasons why we say that dreams are unreal is to highlight our observation that events that occur in a dream do not have the same real life consequences that events that occur when you are awake do. They can have the exact same consequences in a dream but their consequences in real life are usually very different, in fact, negligible. For example, if you kill someone in a dream the police might be after you. Just like in real life. But when you wake up, no police will be after you.

The word "unreal" in this particular case applies to our assumptions regarding the events that take place in wakeful consciousness that are based entirely on the contents of one's dream. If someone dies in your dream that does not mean that he will be dead when you wake up. In other words, the probability that he will be dead when you wake up is nil. That's what we mean when we say that dreams are unreal.

When we say that dreams are real, on the other hand, what we want to say is that the assumption that people in general have dreams or that this or that person had or will have this or that dream is backed up by evidence. Nothing else. It always comes down to assumptions.

[Is_Yde_opN]

Being corrupt and greedy makes you a subjectivist? Maybe it makes you biased, but being subjectivist just means you believe reality is based on subjective experience.

In my experience, people who initiate this questioning of subjectivity versus objectivity, who present it as such a dichotomy are usually seeking to escape reality.

In their presentation the subjectivist is somebody who thinks that their subjective experience of reality is what best approximates reality, or simply what reality is (for them). In turn they present the objectivist as someone who knows about what reality is and who proposes that an agreement about what this reality is exists among all (sane) people.
Both are effectively solipsists in this scenario or let's say the idea is a solipsism shared among all humans (or even rocks, for the apostles of self valuing).

[Arminius]

It is quite obvious that the people have different definitions for "subjectivity" and "objectivity". The number of subjectivists is very much larger than the number of objectivists. It is impossible to get those required definitions in a discussion (1) between subjectivists and (2) between the many subjectivists and the few objectivists.

[Is_Yde_opN]

Being the subjectivist you can always agree to disagree and being evasive is a virtue among the effeminate. So that’s why most people will choose the “It’s all cool, man, it’s all just an opinion, man.” option.
But, there comes a point where the masses become irritated with all the most extreme looney cases among them who demand equal air time or even more air time with their subjective opinions and that’s when they cry for more objectivism. Objectivism for them means that an authority figure(s) sets boundaries for right opinions.

Those human beings undertake a much more difficult task whose desire for knowledge kindles a striving to observe the things of nature in and of themselves and in their relations to one another. We no longer have the standard that helped us when we looked at things in relation to ourselves. We lack the measure of pleasure and displeasure, attraction and repulsion, use and harm. We must renounce these and as quasi-divine beings seek and examine what is and not what pleases. True botanists should not be touched by the beauty or the utility of a plant. They should investigate the plant’s formation and its relation to the remaining plant kingdom. Just as the sun coaxes forth and shines on all plants, botanists should consider all plants with an even and quiet gaze and take the measure for knowledge—the data that form the basis for judgment—not out of themselves but out of the circle of what they observe.

People are in their lives much more often subjective than objective with their assessment of something and why wouldn’t they. It’s their life which depends on evaluating something in accordance with their needs.
Objectivity helps with this decision making, it provides a more accurate evaluation of reality in particular longterm consequences but ultimately the decision is always based on what is good for us as a subject, or what we deem to be good.

So what is a subjectivist and an objectivist?
Does the subjectivist denounce the validity of trying to be objective in an assessment of reality?
Does the objectivist not ultimately consider his subjective preferences and needs when making decisions? Are they universal?

[Arminius]

The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions. Whether this goal is accomplished is a different question. So, an objectivist should not claim that his decisions are universal. If he claimed this, he would be more a subjectivist than an objectivist. An objectivist needs to be calm, serene. So, it is not easy to be an objectivist. Even saying "I am an objectivist" is not easy, if one is a real objectivist. An objectivist can never be sure whether he really is an objectivist or not. So, "being an objectivist" is more like "becoming an objectivist". It is easier to be a subjectivist, although a subjectivist has a similar problem with his self-referentiality, because he too has senses and a brain, and it is not easy to deny that there are objects.

Everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject, but in order to know, to decide what this object exactly is, there must be such an object and not only a subject (regardless whether the object is merely in the brain of the subject or really there [in the world]).

The subject/object dichotomy is a relatively old problem of epistemology. I believe that it is unsolvable.

[Arminius]

It is likely impossible to be an absolute subjectivist or an absolute objectivist. So, it is likely that there are merely relative subjectivists and merely relative objectivists.

[Is_Yde_opN]

The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions.

Do you mean to not exclusively consider his subjective preferences when making his decisions or do you mean to not consider his subjective preferences?

Because objective inquiry is always detached from making decisions. It’s about understanding the phenomenon at hand.
A judgement is always subjective but of course it’s not necessarily based on only very narrow-minded considerations.

For some Europeans there exists a desire to be objective in their judgement of others or in other words a sense of fairness, of truthfulness which must be fulfilled. This sense can be misdirected and exploited by hypocritical cheats and liars.

[Magnus Anderson]

The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions.

I think we will agree that there is no clear cut distinction between objectivists and subjectivists. It is a matter of degrees. This is because objectivity is measured by the degree to which one's judgments are informed by what happened in the past. And higher degree of objectivity isn't necessarily better than lower degree of objectivity. It depends on many things among them one's needs. Sometimes, being objective is an overkill. Not all truth is relevant.