There are no black swans. — creativesoul

Can we not say that this is objectively false, but was believed to be objectively true? IOW, there is an objective/subjective distinction that is orthogonal to the true/false distinction.

Then we can be a bit more subtle, and say that "vanilla ice-cream is the best" has the form of an objective claim, but is usually intended subjectively, with a suppressed qualification of 'to me' or else, objectively, 'to most people'. But sometimes, such forms can be actually made simpliciter as objective claims, and then they strictly meaningless.

Thus when you claim as subjective truth, 'I like vanilla ice-cream best', I can still question the truth of it - 'But have you tried salted caramel?' In the same way as I can question the truth of 'There are no black swans' with 'Have you been to Australia?'

When the brain writes memories to the cerebral matter, aspects of the limbic system, in the core of the brain, will add emotional tags during the writing process. The result is our memory has both sensory data combined with emotional tags. Our strongest memories will have the strongest emotional attachments.

The value of this schema is that it allows the animal to make decisions without needing to think. If a similar situation arises, it will trigger the old memory and the attached feeling, with the animal reacting to the feeling. For example, if the animal ate a strange new food, and it was good and caused no ill affects, the next time they encounter that food, they will feel a positive feeling and eat. They do not have to recreate the wheel and run another cautious experiment.

Since our memories are binary and have both data and feelings tags, it is possible to trigger the memory in two different ways. We can think about a particular feeling and certain data will appear, with that feeling attachment. Or we can think about certain data, and the emotional tag will appear as a feeling. For example, if I feel hungry, images; data, of my favorite foods will appear in my mind. On the other hand, if I think of my favorite food, it can make me feel hungry. Objective versus subjective is loosely based on which side of the memory; emotion or data, you use to induce memory. It is also connected to natural or unnatural tagging.

Subjective; emotional side inductions, can be objective if there was a natural emotional tag added during the writing process, based on natural instinct. In the example, of the animal eating the new food, his final tag feeling tag was based on previously gathered data and his experiment that was drawn to a successful conclusion. His feeling is objective, based on previous cause and affect. Sometimes a gut feeling seems subjective to others, but it can actually be based on an internal logic synthesis. The gut feeling allows you to know the answer before the solution is fully conscious.

Where subjectivity; emotional side induction, remains subjective is usually connected to group think that is not filtered through natural instinct for tagging. This other feeling can still trigger memory but it will not have the correct natural tag and will thereby become subjective.

A good example is the anti-Trump movement in American politics. All memory tagging by this movement, no matter what Trump does, gets a negative tag, due to group think propaganda inductions. This tagging process is not objective, based on case by case studies. This emotional thinker will draw subjective conclusions, env with sound logic, due to premises that are not natural with cause and affect.

Objective; data side induction of memory, can also be both objective and subjective. For example, if you based the value of your chosen beliefs, on prestige; this is a type of memory tagging is based on what the group subjectively feels is correct. One may induce this memory, directly, and arrange it with other memory, in a sound logical way to draw a what appears to be a rational conclusion, but the original premises were not objective, so the result is subjective.

For example, at one time it was believed that the earth was flat. There was a social prestige in this belief, since the leaders; highest social prestige, assumed it to be truth; in good faith. The average Joe would use this feeling of prestige and assume this premise was objective. As we reason from there, using sound logic, if the earth was flat and you sailed to the edge, you would fall off. This follows logically, but is not objective in terms of reality. Typically, as humans, we go both ways in terms of memory inductions, with logic not always using premises that objective, to draw what we assume is an objective conclusion.

It can get very complicated and requires you question your memory tagging to make sure each premise is self standing based on logic and data. Throwing money at a theory does not make it objective in proportion to the money spent. The value of emotional side inductions, based on sound tagging of memory, is speed. Then you translate the result in the opposite way; data side, making sure the induced feelings, during translation are also adding up. It is a skill you can learn.

Through our available evidence our consciousnesses is an emergent property from our physiology. — Kamikaze Butter

Belief in such a consciousness, separate from body, but somehow "emergent" from it, is Spiritualist delusion.

For the purposes of the physical story, "consciousness" can be defined as the property of being a purposefully-responsive device that is similar enough to the speaker that the speaker feels enough kinship with it to say that it's "conscious".

Circular, but unavoidably so, because it's an individual subjective matter where you draw the line.

You're a purposefully-responsive device, in principle not significantly qualitatively different from a Roomba or a mousetrap.

Michael Ossipoff

But aside from the fact that people use the words I don't know I'd go so far as to say there is some advantage to using them -- they are ambiguous and often seem to result in more misunderstanding than understanding. — Moliere

I agree. They are symptoms of our Cartesian hangover. We have essentially grown up in a culture that long ago adopted the idea that we are self-sufficient minds (res cogitans-subjects-internal) that through the miracle of transcendence are able to interact with self-sufficient matter out there in the world (res-extensa-objects-external). Simply put, we consider ourselves to be on the outside looking in.
Yet we are the consummate insider. We know of no other being that is more inside the world than us. And so we are on the inside thinking we are on the outside looking in and then we wonder why we are so confused by what we see. Significant cognitive dissonance is built in to our Cartesian culture.

I disagree. If truth is dependent upon an assertion, then absent an assertion, there is no truth. And if you believe in the subject/object dichotomy, then you would agree that objects do not make assertions? Subjects make assertions. There can be no truth in the absence of a being that makes assertions.

Truth(or falsehood) does not depend on assertion, it is a property of assertion. And subjective/objective is another property of assertions. And if there is nothing asserted, then indeed there is is nothing of which it can be further asserted that it is true or false. One does not consider a rock to be true. But then one does not consider a Scotsman to be true either, if one has any sense. But I'm not sure what you're even disagreeing with?

Truth(or falsehood) does not depend on assertion, it is a property of assertion. — unenlightened

And if there is nothing asserted, then indeed there is is nothing of which it can be further asserted that it is true or false. — unenlightened

The above strike me as inconsistent.

If I had said, the existence of truth (or falsehood) depends upon the existence of an assertion, would you have agreed? I do believe that would reconcile the apparent inconsistency in the above statements.

I think we are close.

I restate my notion: an assertion is true if the entity toward which the assertion is directed shows itself to be as asserted.

I am uncertain as to what subject/object adds to the discussion. Feel free to enlighten me in that regard.

So truth is objective. And 'objectively true' is a tautology, like 'truly true'. — unenlightened

Or actually real? Or really true? Or truly real? Or actually true?

I love the classics. :smile:

I restate my notion: an assertion is true if the entity toward which the assertion is directed shows itself to be as asserted. — Arne

What entity is this assertion directed towards? I need to see if it is as asserted, before assenting to it.

It is rather a problem for such theories of truth, that one needs to judge whether or not they are true, and one only has the theory by which to judge the truth of the theory. So I prefer to say at the outset that an assertion "S" is true iff S, and leave it at that, which is close to what you want to say, I think.

I am uncertain as to what subject/object adds to the discussion. Feel free to enlighten me in that regard. — Arne

Well sometimes Like to talk about myself. If I say my back aches, I might be telling a falsehood, or I might be telling the truth. And if you saw me doing gymnastics without grimacing you would be justified in doubting me. Still, it is convenient to distinguish such claims about the speakers' experience from those about potentially common experience - you can find out directly if the cat is on the mat or not, by looking to see where the cat is. And at this point it is usual to go into a long discussion of phantom limb pain, where an amputee can have a real pain in a non-existent appendage. 'Objectively' there is no leg, but that does not stop it really hurting.
Pain is subjective, but legs are objective. True pain in false leg -- and low, we arrive happily at a distinction between experience and reality. Gotta love that.

What entity is this assertion directed towards? I need to see if it is as asserted, before assenting to it. — unenlightened

I use the word entity rather than object.

Stick around a while and you will see why.

An assertion is true if the entity (object) toward which the assertion is directed shows itself as it is asserted.

The assertion that the car (entity, object) is blue is true if the car shows itself to be blue.

it seems to me that your subject/object distinction could just as well be handled by saying some people are simply not in a position to make the true/false call. If you assert your back is sore, I am in no position to make a true/false assessment of your assertion. If you say your back is sore and you then start doing cartwheels, I am in a position to see that the entity toward which the assertion is directed is not showing itself as asserted.

it seems to me that your subject/object distinction could just as well be handled by saying some people are simply not in a position to make the true/false call. — Arne

Well who is in a position to make the call for the pain in an amputated leg? We all agree that the amputee does not have the leg any more than you or I have it. What position counts as a position?

I use the word entity rather than object. — Arne

Hmm, why is that?

Well who is in a position to make the call for the pain in an amputated leg? We all agree that the amputee does not have the leg any more than you or I have it. What position counts as a position? — unenlightened

I do not know who it is but I know it is not me.

If there is a person in a position to make a final determination of true/false, calling the decision subjective/objective does not make it any less true/false.

Just saying.

I d

Hmm, why is that? — Posty McPostface

I try and avoid the internal/external baggage that comes with subjective/objective.

It is like taking aspirin for my Cartesian hangover.

It is better than hair of the dog.

Cartesian hangover. — Arne

What's that? Sounds like material for a new topic.

So truth is objective. And 'objectively true' is a tautology, like 'truly true'. — unenlightened

Or actually real? Or really true? Or truly real? Or actually true? — Arne

If "objectively" is being used in its hardest and most absolute sense, then it refers to that which actually is, which is something more than merely true. But I'm not sure if this is the sense that was intended. :chin:

that which actually is — Pattern-chaser

And in what way is that which actually is different from that which is?

And what about that which really is?

I can't believe you walked right in to that one.

Or are you messing with our heads?

:smile:

perhaps a good name would be "What do you take for your Cartesian hangover?" The unenlightened one and you have senses of humor, give me some ideas for names. Humor draws them in. Of course, any one who goes by the handle Posty McPostface already knows that. :-)

If you start a topic on the hangover philosophy has faced since Descartes, I would gladly post about my own secret remedy. If not then I referenced a very pertinent topic in the OP which hasn't been touched.

I disagree.

I do not know who it is but I know it is not me.

If there is a person in a position to make a final determination of true/false, calling the decision subjective/objective does not make it any less true/false. — Arne

That's right. It's a different distinction. Pain and pleasure are subjective. Legs and vaginas are objective. Nothing to do with truth and falsehood. Truly, amputees commonly feel excruciating pain in the limbs they do not have for several years, on and off. The object is missing, but the pain is felt.This has already been determined and agreed by medicine. Phantom limb pain is real pain in a phantom limb. There are subjective truths.

Phantom limb pain is real pain in a phantom limb. There are subjective truths. — unenlightened

You keep begging the question.

How is your proposition regarding truth being an attribute of the assertion advanced in any way by this subjective/objective distinction?

It seems to me that this distinction is (as always) just getting in the way and muddying up the waters.

And is that not a central claim of the original post?

Is this arguably unnecessary and continually introduced distinction proof positive that Posty McPostface is correct, at least in this instance?

okay

:smile:

If you start a topic on the hangover philosophy — Posty McPostface

How about "the rock I am thinking about actually is, therefore I am"

I am puzzled how the Cartesians ended up convincing us that the rock (object in the external world) is actually real while grudgingly granting some sort of diminished realness to the (internal) experiences in my head. After all, Descartes was emphatic that those sort of real things inside my head are the only real things the existence of which are beyond doubt. How did they turn that inside out?

And is that not a central claim of the original post? — Arne

What is? I'm afraid I'm confused myself.

What is? I'm afraid I'm confused myself. — Posty McPostface

The objective subjective trap is something I have noticed occurring for quite some time now. People talk about being objective or subjective; but, what does that even mean? — Posty McPostface

I was asking unenlightened whether attaching the word subjective to an agreed upon truth created unnecessary confusion. It opens the objective-subjective trap and the next thing you know people are talking about the actually true and the true that is sort of less than actually true. ITS A TRAP

And the trap is a gibberish machine.

And the trap is a gibberish machine. — Arne

Yes, the truth has been spoken.

Yes, the truth has been spoken. — Posty McPostface

You rock!!