The stick is not bent in the water the Muller-Lyer lines are not unequal length but they appear that way to someone. — Andrew4Handel
Then there is the privacy or memory and pain. I have a lot of information only immediately accessible to me that I can choose to share via language and pain is not something we can share, it is our own and only our pain reactions are publicly observable. — Andrew4Handel
Musical tastes differ as people have different reactions to and experiences of the same piece of music. — Andrew4Handel
How can you mispercieve the external world if you are are just having a brute direct experience of it. — Andrew4Handel
everyone also knows that the stick isn't bent — gurugeorge
Musical tastes cluster, and there is quite a lot of statistically-observable agreement on what's good and bad musically, both synchronically and diachronically. Taste has an element of subjectivity, certainly, but it is not completely subjective across the board. But anyway, that's really a different sense of "subjectivity" from the one we're concerned with here, I think. — gurugeorge
The point is that the bent stick is not in the external "objective world" — Andrew4Handel
Just because people can agree on some subjective states does not make them less subjective. — Andrew4Handel
I am not saying different subjective experiences cannot be accounted for by differing brain patterns but that there is an experiencer being subject to experiences that he/she is reporting. — Andrew4Handel
The distinction between appearance and reality is not a distinction between subjective and objective, — gurugeorge
Consciousness is probably nothing special. It is made of the same substance as everything else — Harry Hindu
objective means being independent of the perceptions — Andrew4Handel
I don't think anything can be proven to be independent of the perception and the senses, because we are only aware of things through perception and the senses. — Andrew4Handel
Another examples is if I mistake bush for a cow in the darkness. The seeming like a cow must be happening in my mind. — Andrew4Handel
No, that's just how the bush looks under those conditions — gurugeorge
I was being objective in saying that consciousness isn't any more important than any other natural process. Of course a conscious being would think that their consciousness is special, but that in itself is subjective and isn't conductive to scientific research. The sciences attempt to establish a view from everywhere (objective) that can apply the same explanation to all conscious beings and explain why they all are conscious and why it is useful to have it.Nothing in reality is trivial. The phenomena we discover is all special and not banal and with weird properties. But I don't see consciousness being explained using the same framework we use from the natural sciences. — Andrew4Handel
Do we really have different access to a tree than we do with each others minds? Your mental states and bodily sensations are indirectly accessed by observing your behaviors. When we look at a tree, we only see the outer layer and it's behavior. What we are able to see is only what light can reflect off of, which is why we can't see atoms. Light doesn't reflect off of conscious experiences. Conscious experiences are a partially produced from the information we receive via light entering our eyes.I think subjectivity is one the most defining, special aspects of mind. It is easy to imagine that we all experience a tree in a similar way but we have immediate access to our private mental states and bodily sensations in a way unlike the public access to trees and their cells and biochemistry etc. — Andrew4Handel
You mean like QM?I think expanding physics or exploring the role of the observer in physics and observer relativity is probably more useful than trying to exorcise consciousness or subjectivity from science. — Andrew4Handel
I never said it was irrelevant. I said it wasn't special. There is a difference. Consciousness needs to be explained. It just needs to be explained objectively - without making any value judgements (which are only useful for yourself). It needs an explanation that gets at what consciousness is and how it related to the world, why it is useful to have it, and how each person has their own version (subjectivity).Like Descartes I believe we can be more certain of our conscious existence then anything. So that when I have been deeply unconscious everything ceases to exist for me and becomes somewhat irrelevant. So consciousness is not like a weak irrelevant epiphenomenon and something to tap onto to the end of an exhaustive physicalist framework imo. — Andrew4Handel
A coin can appear different from different angles but these are not part of the nature of the coin. — Andrew4Handel
This is our fundamental disagreement. They are very much part of the nature of the coin — gurugeorge
(..)because if you accept that there are such things as illusions, then you must accept that some perceptions are objective — gurugeorge
It seems to me that somethings appearance is a property of the visual system and not the object. — Andrew4Handel
I think an illusion just shows the possibility of experience being deceptive. Because it casts doubt on the validity of a former experience. — Andrew4Handel
At the very least we need an observer who is separate from an object to discuss it and I am trying to explore that location of the person having these perceptions of some kind of reality. — Andrew4Handel
As Thomas Nagel says "Objectivity is a view from nowhere" — Andrew4Handel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.