Perhaps it's a distinction that I'm missing? — Wayfarer

So I stated my view. If one has a different view, one would support the view, and if that's persuasive, I'd change my view.

It would be like me saying, "Phlogiston is the cause of combustion." If you have a different view, you'd state it and support it, and if I thought the support was sound and I found it persuasive, I'd change my view.

So I stated my view. — Terrapin Station

And I took issue with it. And you said 'hey that's not my view'. So I quoted you, to show that it actually was. Your move.

And I took issue with it. And you said 'hey that's not my view'. So I quoted you, to show that it actually was. Your move. — Wayfarer

It's my view that justifications are not objective. It's not my view that there are no objective bases to anything. If someone wants to argue an objective basis for believing something different than I believe, I'm not at all saying that I'd reject that out of hand because I feel there are no objective bases to anything. You characterized my position that way, but I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. That I gave my view that justifications aren't objective doesn't at all imply that I think they're are no objective bases to anything.

Maybe you were thinking that "justification" simply denotes "basis for something"? That's not how I define "justification." A justification is whatever is taken to be necessary and sufficient support of a claim (well, or of actions, too, if we want to broaden it in that way). What I'm saying is that determining what counts as necessary and sufficient support of a claim is something that only people do. Additionally, counting something as necessary and sufficient support for a claim is something that only people do. It's not something that the mind-independent world does. That doesn't amount to me thinking that there are no objective bases for anything.

No. Your personal tastes are dependent on your physical/emotional reaction to consuming anchovies — ChrisH
Which makes it subjective. — Terrapin Station

No. Your reactions are objective facts - they're not dependent on anyone's opinion.

If you've actually consumed anchovies, you don't have an opinion on whether or not you like them - you either do or you don't. — ChrisH
Liking or not liking something is your opinion — Terrapin Station

No. It's an objective fact.


You appear to be confusing two different claims:


1) "I like anchovies." (Objective factual claim)

2) "Anchovies are delicious." (Subjective opinion)

None of this will be settled here. I read some of the comments, and some of you haven't understood what I've said, and the confusions still stand. I don't want this thread to be solely about epistemology, although it's important to my claims about consciousness.

Some of what I said isn't clear enough, so I'll have to re-write some of it.

Maybe I'll start a thread on the subject of language, and the objectivity of language-games.

No. Your reactions — ChrisH

Are your reactions mental phenomena?

"I like anchovies" isn't about a mental phenomenon?

Are your reactions mental phenomena? — Terrapin Station

"Mental phenomena" are brain states. Brain states are objective aspects of our world. Claims about brain states are objective claims.

Did you understand the distinction I was making in my previous post? Claims about one's own brain states are objective claims.

"Mental phenomena" are brain states. Brain states are objective aspects of our world. Claims about brain states are objective claims.

Did you understand the distinction I was making in my previous post? Claims about one's own brain states are objective claims. — ChrisH

I'm using the word "subjective" to refer to the standard designation, where it's referring to mental phenomena, or mind-dependent phenomena. Yes, those are brain states. By definition, those brain states are subjective. "Objective" refers to the complement of mental phenomena--everything else, all of the physical stuff aside from mental brain states.

So claims about mental phenomena, by definition, are about something subjective, not objective.

What definition of subjective/objective were you using? If mental states are objective in your view, what phenomena is subjective?

What definition of subjective/objective were you using? If mental states are objective in your view, what phenomena is subjective? — Terrapin Station

It's claims (propositions), not "phenomena", that are subjective or objective. I gave an example of the distinction between subjective and objective claims in my last but one post.

Here it is again:

1) "I like anchovies." (Objective factual claim)

2) "Anchovies are delicious." (Subjective opinion) — ChrisH

It's claims (propositions), not "phenomena", that are subjective or objective. I gave an example of the distinction between subjective and objective claims in my last but one post. — ChrisH

How about giving a definition rather than an example?

You've been insisting that claims such as "I like anchovies" are opinions (and therefore subjective). The standard definition of 'opinion' does not support this view:

1. A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

1.1 The beliefs or views of a group or majority of people.

1.2 An estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.

An opinion is an evaluative claim.

"I like anchovies" is a factual claim about ones own brain state (it's not an evaluative claim). It's not the expression of an opinion.

"Anchovies are delicious", on the other hand, is an evaluative claim about anchovies and is an opinion.

Did you notice above where I asked "how about giving a definition" of subjective/objective?

We can move on to other things (like what opinions are) after that.

Did you notice above where I asked "how about giving a definition" of subjective/objective? — Terrapin Station

You just asked for a definition (you didn't say "of subjective/objective").

In any event, if a claim expresses an opinion (an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something) it's subjective.

If it's a factual claim (non-evaluative) it's objective (it's definitively true or false).

I assumed you were aware of this.

You quoted me writing this:

What definition of subjective/objective were you using? If mental states are objective in your view, what phenomena is subjective? — Terrapin Station

You gave examples instead.

So I then wrote:

How about giving a definition rather than an example? — Terrapin Station

Okay, so "subjective" only refers to "opinions" in your view. And "I like anchovies" isn't an opinion, because presumably it's not a view or judgment formed about something?

"I like anchovies" isn't an opinion, because presumably it's not a view or judgment formed about something? — Terrapin Station

That's right. It's a straightforward factual claim.

That's right. It's a straightforward factual claim. — ChrisH

So if liking something isn't a judgment about it in your view, I have to wonder what the heck definition you're using of "judgment," and re something like "Anchovies are delicious," it's not a fact that the person who stated that thinks that anchovies are delicious?

You're clearly struggling with the distinction between the following:

"I like anchovies"
and
"Anchovies are delicious"

One is a factual statement about the speaker, the other is a judgment of ("an estimation of the quality or worth of") anchovies.

Sure, so help me out. "I like" seems like an estimation of the quality or worth of something. "I like" versus "I dislike" seems to be a judgment.

Here are a couple examples of like/dislike being used as a judgment by the way:

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-12272-001

https://books.google.com/books?id=yCZxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=like+dislike+judgment&source=bl&ots=EFx_PIc1k1&sig=5-VM41XGbxUfokZ2adk64fM1zQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjiqo_QkLveAhVP3FMKHVqcBcgQ6AEwDnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=like%20dislike%20judgment&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4TJPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA519&lpg=PA519&dq=like+dislike+judgment&source=bl&ots=G433gqm--2&sig=mmxDyX1XKir4VFzAegwGaE8ekS0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPnOqGkbveAhVQy1MKHXL3BgU4ChDoATADegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=like%20dislike%20judgment&f=false

Sure, so help me out. "I like" seems like an estimation of the quality or worth of something. "I like" versus "I dislike" seems to be a judgment. — Terrapin Station

Both are factual (non-judgmental) statements about the speaker.

This is probably one of the longest surviving threads, I remember it existed back on philosophyforums.com . Good ol' Sam26. I can't say for sure there is evidence of 'consciousness' but you can bet this thread will still be around after the demise of the collective body.

It seems to me that they're facts about judgments the speaker is making. It's a fact that the speaker has made a judgment that he/she likes anchovies. Just like it's a fact that the speaker has made a judgment that anchovies are delicious.

It seems to me that they're facts — Terrapin Station

They're not "facts", they're statements which make either judgmental or factual claims.

So it's not a fact that the speaker has made a judgment that he/she likes anchovies?

So it's not a fact that the speaker has made a judgment that he/she likes anchovies? — Terrapin Station

It's a fact that the speaker has made two statements (everything is a 'fact' in this trivial sense). Only one is an evaluative claim (judgment).

"I like x" is a judgment.

"I like x" is a judgment. — Terrapin Station

No. "X is likeable" is a judgment.

"I like x" is a factual claim. Either I do (sincere) or I don't (I'm lying)

"I like x" is a factual claim. Either I do (sincere) or I don't (I'm lying) — ChrisH

Every judgment is a factual claim in that sense. Either you do feel however you said (that something is delicious for example) or you do not.

I can feel brain cells dying during this discussion by the way.

Ok. This is going nowhere.