Human feelings of belief and truth have little to do with correctness. — YuZhonglu

Something is either true, or false. Feelings usually have little to do with it.

Further, to feel that something is true is to believe in that thing. One can feel that it is true, without its being true.

Oftentimes statements are neither true nor false. Feelings have everything to do with it. People rationalize their feelings, all the time.

I think you're just hand-waving.

I know some philosophers talk this way. I think it misleading. The remainder of your post serves as an example of what happens when a philosopher talks this way. — Banno

I don't see how that is misleading. You seem used to interpret subjectivity as referring solely to feelings or tastes or thoughts, because on many occasions you have noticed that different people seem to have different feelings/tastes/thoughts. However you assume that perception is objective, in that everyone perceive the same world from their own point of view, that if you put different people in the same place they would perceive the exact same thing, but would only make different reports of what they perceive because of their different feelings/tastes/thoughts. That is a strong assumption. There are many examples where different people report having differing perceptions (seeing different colors, hearing different sounds, ...).

The root of the disagreement I see here is that you (and people agreeing with you) assume that there exists an objective world, existing independently of us, and that our perception is a window to this objective world. Whereas I (and presumably others) don't make such an assumption. I have noticed how different beliefs can make us see the world in very different ways, how believing in something make us see it exist.

To me, the objective world that you and many others assume to exist independently of us is a world that we construct in part ourselves through our beliefs. For instance, the belief that the things we have perceived exist when we're not perceiving them leads to construct a world in our mind, a world that is consistent in some ways, but then when we perceive things that don't fit into that construction we relegate them to the status of hallucination, while if we hadn't forced a specific constructed world in the first place we would consider these unconventional perceptions differently, more seriously, on the same level of reality as the others, which would give rise to a very different view of the world.

Forcing beliefs and assumptions onto our perceptions forces us to see the world in a restricted, limited way, and to me that's what people are doing when they are using their beliefs to construct an objective world in their minds supposedly existing independently of us, without realizing that what they see as an objective world was constructed in part through their own subjective beliefs.

Fine.

@frank

But take a look at Leo's post.

What do you make of how he uses "subjective"?

I think Banno is correct here. "Experience of remembering" is a more detailed reference to what is present in the instance of someone "remembering." It's specially talking about how an experience is occurring aninstance of "remembering".

I might give @frank a chance to respond before I do.

Forcing Newtonian beliefs and assumptions onto our perceptions forces us to see the world in a restricted, limited way, and to me that's what people are doing when they are using their Newtonian beliefs to construct an objective world in their minds supposedly existing independently of what physicist's call observation, without realizing that what they see as an objective world was constructed in part through their own Newtonian beliefs. — leo

In the light of our recent thread on QM, do these edits to Leo's post make it acceptable?

@frank

It is easy to explain in terms of language games. "Subjective" and "objective" have a fairly clear use, as set out in the OP.

Philosophers tend to take words of this sort out for a walk, away from their home. When they do this it is important to keep an eye on what is going on. It is apparent that when we talk of a memory being subjective, we are using "subjective" in a way that is different from when we talk about my preference for vanilla being subjective.

So, let's take care to set out that difference.

I tend to think there is less of a difference in that context than we might expect. In either case, I think "subjective" is referring to the fact the object of discussion is one person and never any other.

It saying the fact, be it the presence of a memory or a preference for vanilla, in question is formed entirely in this individual and so cannot be true on other terms (often referred to as "objective." ).

Recent thread on QM? You might remind me.

Leo talks of an "objective world". Again, I think it incumbent that he explain how an objective world differs from a world.

Instead, in the post above,

you (and people agreeing with you) assume that there exists an objective world, existing independently of us, and that our perception is a window to this objective world. — leo

Now I hope it clear that I am not assuming the existence of an objective world, but instead rejecting the distinction between subjective and objective in this context.

Which way do you go, @frank?

@TheWillowOfDarkness?

Leo's post needs tweaking in order not to seem self-contradictory. I think I understand what he's trying to say, though. It just needs more sorting out.

I'm going to be a little bit meaner. In terms of the "independent world" set out in leo's quote, I don't think it can be coherently rejected. Even if we take existing things depend upon u to exist, they are still distinct from us.

If the tree is only there when I am looking at, it doesn't make my experience the tree.

Even if the presence of our experiences is causal of the things we see, our experience is still a window into the independent (i.e. things which are not our experiences). You cannot get out of this even taking an idealist position in which things we experience only exist due to the presence of our experience.

Leo talks of an "objective world". Again, I think it incumbent that he explain how an objective world differs from a world. — Banno

An objective world is a world many seem to have in mind when they say things such as Jupiter has an objective existence independently of us. In contrast, I say that anyone is subjectively involved in constructing their world through their perceptions and beliefs. That what people call an objective world is nothing more than a subjectively constructed world they have agreed on.

In what way is it self-contradictory?

In what way is it self-contradictory? — leo

Look at this section:

The root of the disagreement I see here is that you (and people agreeing with you) assume that there exists an objective world, existing independently of us, and that our perception is a window to this objective world. Whereas I (and presumably others) don't make such an assumption. I have noticed how different beliefs can make us see the world in very different ways, how believing in something make us see it exist. — leo

You started by rejecting the "objective world", but then speak of noticing how people see the world in different ways. What's the difference between the objective world and the world?

I think I understand what he's trying to say, though. — frank

So would you be incline to agree with Leo?

I'm going to be a little bit meaner. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And I'd be meaner still. @Leo concludes that the tree disappears when unobserved despite there being no evidence to support this.

So would you be incline to agree with Leo? — Banno

Not as written, no.

You started by rejecting the "objective world", but then speak of noticing how people see the world in different ways. What's the difference between the objective world and the world? — frank

I see thanks, that was just a poor formulation on my part, when I say people "see the world in different ways", I mean to say people have their own subjective world, depending on their beliefs and perceptions. And that what many call an "objective world" is a subjective world they agree on.

An objective world is a world many seem to have in mind when they say things such as Jupiter has an objective existence independently of us. In contrast, I say that anyone is subjectively involved in constructing their world through their perceptions and beliefs. That what people call an objective world is nothing more than a subjectively constructed world they have agreed on. — leo

Leo, and all, take a look at how this uses "we". Perceptions are only ever in one person's mind, and yet we construct the world.

Some might recall a debate from long ago in which I argued that the approach Leo is using leads to solipsism.

I like to disrupt that thought process because people cannot beyond the object they are no longer seeing.

My question in these situations runs more like this: since the person has looked away, how do they have any evidence the tree is gone? They aren't looking that spot anymore... they don't have a leg to stand on empirically.

I see thanks, that was just a poor formulation on my part, when I say people "see the world in different ways", I mean to say people have their own subjective world, depending on their beliefs and perceptions. And that what many call an "objective world" is a subjective world they agree on. — leo

And the meta-point, the one this thread is about, is how this has so misled Leo.

Indeed.

Leo concludes that the tree disappears when unobserved despite there being no evidence to support this. — Banno

I didn't conclude this, I said that saying the tree exists independently of us when we do not perceive it is a belief. Do you agree that this is a belief, or do you see it as an objective fact?

I see thanks, that was just a poor formulation on my part, when I say people "see the world in different ways", I mean to say people have their own subjective world, depending on their beliefs and perceptions. And that what many call an "objective world" is a subjective world they agree on. — leo

So I have a subjective world (my world) and you have yours (your world). Where we agree, we call that the objective world.

But what's up with agreement? Do we agree on portions of worlds? Or do we agree on statements?

Where we agree — frank

How could you ever know that you agree, as opposed to appearing to agree...?

After all, all you have is your perceptions of agreement...

(and so on... this is how the counterargument goes.)

Leo concludes that the tree disappears when unobserved despite there being no evidence to support this. — Banno

I didn't conclude this, I said that saying the tree exists independently of us when we do not perceive it is a belief. Do you agree that this is a belief, or do you see it as an objective fact? — leo

So many issues squeezed into such a small space.

I don't plan to answer this here. realism-idealism debates are fun, and we can have one if you like. Set it up.

We definitely depend on statements that attempt to mediate the subject into objective understanding. But this mediation is indirectly related to the subject's actual existence. So with the mediation we lose the essence of subjectivity by making it something objective.