scientific method/objectivity — Benj96

"Subject-Object"

faith/belief/spirituality/Gods

'Subject-Subject"

ethics/immorality

'Social-Social"

How do we tie this into different philosophical schools of thought?

Broadly – instrumentalism? idealism? & pragmatism? respectively.

1). "The subject" (ones mind/awareness).
2). "the subject-object" complex or SOC (mind + body)
3). "The object" - (body and external environment excluding minds/subjectivity). — Benj96

I wouldn't extarnalize my body to lump in with all the other stuff of the universe as "object". The mind-body complex is what I regard as myself. I cannot determine what proportion of my response to the universe is the result of how much contribution from present awareness, reason, memory, conditioning, sensation, emotion, association, instinct, genetic imprinting or "brain hard-wiring".

I cannot regard even so much as a toenail of my own with the same degree of objectivity as I regard a stalagmite, nor can I bring the same objectivity to bear on my child slamming a door as I do on a black hole consuming a distant solar system.

Which is a rather long-winded way of saying I don't find it useful to divide the entity with which I identify as "self" into duality or triad. No more use have I for 'schools of philosophy' - Some philosophers had some good ideas; some philosophers seem to have had mostly crappy ideas; some had a mix of good and bad ideas; nearly all - in my unapologetic, unhumble estimation - blew a lot of hot air into the spaces between ideas, to inflate their opinions into systems of thought.

Damn 180 Proof. That's a concise and pretty good summary. No complaints here. Bravo.

What might we say about object - object interaction? I realised this 4th relationship was not outlined in my Triad of communication.

Everything we can know about objectivity assumes the subject (observer). Does this suggest object - object interactions cannot be known because they cannot be observed nor appreciated without the subjective component?

In this case the subject-object (scientific method) as you say, is like some meta stand in for object-object interactions in the sense that it is object-object interaction from the POV of subjects (instrumentalism) where the subject has reduced their subjective bias to the minimum possible degree.

Secondly, to any given self/individual, others are part of the external objective and observable environment. They are part of the external universe. Objects within it.
In that case can we say that ethics/morality is the assignment of subjectivity without proof to those objects that behave in the most similar way to self (ie other humans).

A "pure scientist" - that is to say a subject that treats all other things that are not them as objects with objective behaviour (a solipsist perhaps), objects to be tested upon and proven might be tempted to do any and all sorts of scientific experiments on the external environment including other people.

But as we know, one cannot simply do any type of experiments on others. Consent is required. And even when consent is given, this doesn't necessarily indicate that the experiment is ethical, for example if one consents to being tortured for some scientific insight/gain, others may/will have something to say about it.

Can we say then that ethics is the pragmatism that a scientist (subject) obeys in order to continue being allowed to carry out objective experiments on their environment without parts of that environment (other people) retaliating against them?

What do we say for medical experimentation then where other people's objects (bodies) and minds (subjects) are the sole focus of investigation, with the potential to cause harm during the experiment (ie by administering experimental drugs without full knowledge of their effects or psychotherapies - eg electroconvulsive therapy).

What is the difference between medical experimentation and consentual "potential torture" depending on the outcome?

What might we say about object - object interaction? — Benj96

(Model-dependent) realism? or classical atomism?

How do we tie this into different philosophical schools of thought? — Benj96

Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.

I wouldn't extarnalize my body to lump in with all the other stuff of the universe as "object". — Vera Mont

And yet everything in your body, toenails and such included, are fundamentally reduced to physical units - atoms. To physical and objective components that can also be configured in such a way to get a stalagmite, a mix of gases, or a cucumber, or a computer or a part of a star.

Also, rather unnervingly, there is always the potential for others to treat us as mere objects. To deny any effectuality of our minds/subjectivity.
For example, any person that imposes possession on another's body - rape (using another body for their own satisfaction regardless of consent or suffering), torture is another, and slavery (treating people as tradeable or expendible goods and services that can be traded).

I believe that we are objects just like any other physical thing in the universe because of this fact above. Ones that can be treated as such, but ought not to be.

The appreciation/acknowledgement of others subjective expression is the core of ethics and morality. Empathy is assigning subjectivity to others no? Without any objective proof to do so. To believe their feelings and emotions and objections truly exist, have validity and authority. To believe they can suffer. And thus one must adapt behaviour to navigate around causing suffering to them.

A psychopath in that case is like a "pure/fundamental scientist" (see my response to 180 Proof) in the sense that they go about life manipulating, experimenting on, using and exploiting others as if they were just merely objects with no subjectivity.

It is scary indeed to know that such individuals exist.

But having said that, the opposite end must exist, the opposite end of the spectrum, where one believes nothing is truly just an object. That all things have innate subjectivity.

This to me renders ideas of a spiritualist or panpsychist. Or people that believe in ideas like "God" being the source of all things including subjectivity. But this is also not pragmatic like treating everyone as an object, but for other reasons like the burden of guilt in eating plants and animals when one believes their death or suffering is neccesary for our survival.

Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. — frank

Ooooh yes! Indeed. I like this approach.

On one side we have subjectivity as the source of all things including objects (thesis). On the other we have objectivity as the source of all things including subjectivity (anti-thesis)

Synthesis then is a paradigm where there is clear, underpinning and intractable overlap between the two. That the two states are inseparable.

Synthesis seems thus to be the most prudent approach. As using/exploiting the "inanimate" environment as a pure object leads to backfire/retaliation - eg. Climate change. Or karmic retribution - toxifying/polluting ones environment invariably toxifies/pollutes the self that occupies and depends on it.

We also have the grand question that humans are subjects that are fundamentally reducible to a constellation of physical matter and it's interactions. Where then does one place the boundary between the subject and the objective environment? Perhaps, going by synthesis, there is no boundary. Only a manufactured sense of one (ego).

"Synthesis" suggests we should both treat our world as semi-subjective - requiring fundamental rights (environmental law) and humans as also "semi-subjective" - ie. requiring "compromise" rather than outright freedom of choice - in that we are part object, and part mind - our body, our object, depends on the stability (rights to protection) of the environment, whilst our mind is a free playground of imagination - a private space to conceive of all and any thought or ideas, a place where compromise is not as important in privacy.

Where does "self" end and "other" begin? If one is to treat themselves as pure subject, then they have no choice but to reduce all else to object (the extremist anti-thesis approach). On the other hand if one treats themselves as merely an object, they deny themselves the right to belief, to self respect, to justice against exploitation, manipulation and ownership/possession.

(Model-dependent) realism? or classical atomism? — 180 Proof

What about this:

If "instrumentalism" is not that which is absolutely/undeniably true, but that which best theorises/hypothesises and predicts phenomena - the purview of scientific method (subject - object).

Then maybe object - object interaction is what is "actually true." Not the stuff of theories (instrumental paradigms about what is true/what reality is) but instead "reality itself" - that which does happen, and has reasons for such.

Ie. the truth of how things are regardless of what degree of understanding we apply to it.

If we can have nonsense theories of reality (total delusion), bad theories of reality (uneducated guesses) adequate ones (educated guesses) good ones and extremely good ones (profound detailed insight), then it stands to reason that there must be an end to that spectrum which is just innately true regardless of how close we come to uncovering such.

The religious have a fundamental end principle - "God did it" with no objective explanatory basis. On the other hand scientists have no fundamental theory of everything but slowly follow stepwise the heriarchy of objective bases in an attempt to elude such a final theory.

One has an end but no rationalised premises, the other has rationalised premises galore but no end/finality.

Scientific method is limited in that it cannot prove subjectivity in an objective methodical way. As the two: objectivity and subjectivity - are at odds with one another by definition.

Religious method is limited in that it cannot prove objectivity in a subjective way - the same limitation I reverse.

This is the hard problem. It seems then as Frank said - that synthesis ie. Compromised approach - is the only thing that can overcome the two opposing dogmas.

This is the hard problem. — Benj96

For whom? Not scientists (because it's not even a scientific problem).

For whom? Not scientists (because it's not even a scientific problem). — 180 Proof

Tell that to the scientists that are investigating how the brain gives rise to subjective experience.

They can objectively prove components of a person in isolation. But can they prove objectively the entire subject, in time, as in live - predict all the permutations and possibilities of their behaviour and imagination. It seems not.

Such a calculation would take nothing short of a computer that can compute faster and with more complexity and certainty than the individuals brain.

Furthermore the attempt to do so, invariable influences the individual and their behaviour. The influence of an investigation itself cannot predict the reaction to the investigation itself. As the reaction is an I fonte regress not within the paradigm if the investigation itself which must be quantized/fixed.

And if they could fully objectify a subject - scan their neural activity, access and decode all their private thoughts, memories and predict all their future actions. Would this be ethical (the pragmatic component ont the Triad is denied).

So it seems one way or another, scientific address of the hard problem is denied either by ethics (pragmatics) or by the fact that scientific doctrine of objectification and standardisation cannot objectify/standardise the subject (a state of being unique and unstandardised) as the subject is a reactive agent and any such attempt would lead to incalculable reactionary processes.

And yet everything in your body, toenails and such included, are fundamentally reduced to physical units - atoms. — Benj96

So's my brain. So where is a mind in relation to that?

Also, rather unnervingly, there is always the potential for others to treat us as mere objects. To deny any effectuality of our minds/subjectivity. — Benj96

Didn't you just do that? ^^^

The appreciation/acknowledgement of others subjective expression is the core of ethics and morality. Empathy is assigning subjectivity to others no? — Benj96

yup. That's why I regard various external entities and items with differing degrees of objectivity, as previously stated. I don't believe any biological entity is capable of pure objectivity.

But having said that, the opposite end must exist, the opposite end of the spectrum, where one believes nothing is truly just an object. That all things have innate subjectivity. — Benj96

If they don't bother me, I won't bother them. (The Gods Must Be Crazy is probably due for refresher- watching.)

So's my brain. So where is a mind in relation to that? — Vera Mont

Etiher it is fundamental to the universe, or it is an emergent product of complexity. I fail to see a third option.

Didn't you just do that? — Vera Mont

Nope. I don't believe I treated anyone as an object alone. Because I'm not here writing on tpf expecting inanimate objects to type a response. I'm not speaking to a wall so to speak. I'm expecting subjects with minds to reply.

At most I highlighted that all subjects are based on objective existence, that all subjectivity is tied to a body (object) of which the components are transient in that subjects makeup, and also go to make up all other sorts of objects due to common constituency - atoms.
And finally that not all subjects treat other subjects as subjective. And that this is inherently unethical.

So in conclusion, we are objects. Physical entities. We share this quality with all things. But we are also subjects.

Hence my définition in the OP: "SOC" subject-object complex.

That the two states are inseparable. — Benj96

Bingo!!!

Etiher it is fundamental to the universe, or it is an emergent product of complexity. I fail to see a third option. — Benj96

You don't need a third option. If it's an emergent product of the brain, it can't be separated from the brain - ie objectified out into the universe. If it is fundamental to the universe, it cannot be appropriated by an individual, ie subjectified.

Nope. I don't believe I treated anyone as an object alone. Because I'm not here writing on tpf expecting inanimate objects to type a response. — Benj96

And yet everything in your body, toenails and such included, are fundamentally reduced to physical units - atoms. To physical and objective components that can also be configured in such a way to get a stalagmite, a mix of gases, or a cucumber, or a computer or a part of a star. — Benj96

So in conclusion, we are objects. Physical entities. We share this quality with all things. But we are also subjects. — Benj96

So, wherefore 'a triad' attempting to relate to itself? I can't make sense of the separations.

So, wherefore 'a triad' attempting to relate to itself? I can't make sense of the separations. — Vera Mont

Well, in essence triads are relationships that describe specific features of an underlying phenomenon.

For example: pressure, temperature and volume are a triad that outline boyles law - the underlying principle by which each of the three things interact with one another.

The law itself isn't separate from the three features but rather the culmination of them.

So in my triad of subject, soc and object, none of them exist in isolation (aren't distinctly separate), but individual relationships between 2 can be examined if the third is assumed to be constant.

My aim was to outline the overlap and principle, rather than separate any compoment definitively from the others.

It's a pseudoseparation.

The law itself isn't separate from the three features but rather the culmination of them. (pressure, temperature and volume) — Benj96

But those properties are separate from one another. Or can be arbitrarily separated out of the universe at large for the purpose of limited description, based on demonstrable effects, as they manifest in various discreet materials.
These properties don't exist independently of physical materials. Similarly, you can imagine minds manifesting in various brains and relating to other minds, but I don't see how each can be separated from the brain that generates it, as if they were separate entities.
So, I can't see a "triad" wherein one component is constant and the others are applied to it; at most, mind-brain can apply some degree of objectivity to the rest of the body and a greater degree of objectivity when regarding discreet parts of the universe external to its body - I don't see a relation or interaction; I only see proportionate applications.

forgive me but I'm not entirely following. This could be me just being dim witted here haha.

What you're saying is pressure, temp and volume cannot be separated from physical things. Sure I agree.

However we can acknowledge that temperature by itself is not physical in the sense of being an object. You cannot hold "temperature" itself in your hand. However your hand has a temperature. It's in this case rather the energy contained in and between objects. And a changeable variable. The hand can be a burnt hand or a frozen one or anything in between. It's still a hand. The temp is different.

And you're also saying the mind cannot be separated from physical things like the brain. Again I agree.

The mind is not physical as an object is (like the temperature comparison above). You cannot hold imagination in your hand for example. But you can use a hand to act out imagination (gestures, puppetry, artistry etc). You can use a hand to put imagination into a physical expression using objects.

Like temperature, the mind is a phenomenon within and between objects. That cannot exist in isolation from them.

I don't know if in going off on a tangent here or if I adresses what you were trying to explain. As im not sure if I grasped it properly.

What you're saying is pressure, temp and volume cannot be separated from physical things. Sure I agree. — Benj96

I'm saying the same holds true of "minds: IOW mental processes. Not separable. When I say "my body" and "my mind", I am speaking metaphor, because there is no I to own a body and a mind; the union of bodymind is I. No object; all subject.
So, what relationship or interaction can be discerned or observed between, by whom?

No more use have I for 'schools of philosophy' - Some philosophers had some good ideas; some philosophers seem to have had mostly crappy ideas; some had a mix of good and bad ideas; nearly all - in my unapologetic, unhumble estimation - blew a lot of hot air into the spaces between ideas, to inflate their opinions into systems of thought. — Vera Mont

Wise words.