Exactly.

:up:

So if I make a value judgment it's not a fact - an objective fact, that I made that judgment? Or that the criteria I might have used might themselves be objective?

I like coffee ice cream. That over there is coffee ice cream. So far, objective facts. I sample that coffee ice cream. Yummy! It's good coffee ice cream for these reasons, among them, that I like it. As to other reasons, let's just allow them to exist and that I've referenced them, like consistency, quality of flavour, specific gravity, and so forth.

Everything objective except my experience itself on which I base my reports. It's the same problem as sharing the experience of what a raspberry tastes like to someone who has never had one, or anything like. That is subjective.

And that which is a product of reason is objective.

Yes?

I like coffee ice cream. That over there is coffee ice cream. So far, objective facts — tim wood

"I like x" isn't an objective fact. It's a subjective fact.

"It's good" is a subjective judgment that an individual has to make, for whatever reasons they make it. "It's good" can't be the same as any objective set of facts, because no objective judgments such as that obtain.

Reason is subjective. It's a mental activity.

Be good enough to provide your definition of "fact." You can refer me back and I'll look for it.

The constellation of experiences I rely on to inform my brain that I like something is arguably subjective - although even that may yield to research - but my judgment as to same is an objective fact. Suppose we define some behaviour on my part that, appropriately interpreted, means that I like something. It could be my saying so, or it could result from a reading of my brain waves, or that I smile in a certain way - whatever it is.

We can imagine you hooked up to a machine that lets you know when that behaviour on my part is detected, by perhaps turning on a light, making a noise, or even giving you a mild electric shock. I imagine you'd call that signal objective. Question: when does what you call a "subjective judgment" become objective - if not where I place it?

Be good enough to provide your definition of "fact." You can refer me back and I'll look for it. — tim wood

Facts are states of affairs. Ways that things are. Remember that the subjective/objective distinction refers to mental phenomena versus non-mental phenomena. So an objective fact is a state of affairs that is NOT mental phenomena. A subjective fact would be a state of affairs that is mental phenomena.

A subjective judgment can't "become objective."

You're asking when particular sort of mental phenomenon can become the same phenomenon, just without it being mental. That's not possible.

A heroine addict mother wouldn’t be good for her child hence it can be immoral?

A heroine addict mother wouldn’t be good for her child — Frotunes

That depends on who you ask. (And for many who answer, they're going to want some details, they might be careful not to conflate various things, etc.)

Who would disagree with that? That a mother addicted to heroine is worse for a child than were she sober?

You're out of your element, man. Of course drug use can sometimes be immoral. What if a pilot took cocaine and crashed a plane? What are you smoking?

Who would disagree with that? That a mother addicted to heroine is worse for a child than were she sober? — Frotunes

I don't at all categorically agree with it, for one.

Facts are states of affairs. Ways that things are. Remember that the subjective/objective distinction refers to mental phenomena versus non-mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

How is a state of affairs a non-mental "phenomenon." And you might want to look up the meaning of "conflate." On your definition of subjective/objective, everything is subjective - how not?

Synonyms for "phenomenon" include occurrence, event, happening, fact, situation, circumstance, experience, case, incident, episode, sight, appearance, thing. (Source--Google dictionary)

On your definition of subjective/objective, everything is subjective - how not? — tim wood

That's not at all the case, since most of the world isn't brain phenomena.

Why can't we have discussions around here that aren't so patronizing, by the way?

That's not at all the case, since most of the world isn't brain phenomena. — Terrapin Station

The world may not be, but everything we do with, in, or about it is brain based. So the question, how do you divide between subjective/objective? You can go all Samuel Johnson and kick a stone, but that wont answer.

As to "conflate," which I presume is the other issue, I think you're confusing it with "confuse." My bad if not, but the remark which contained it doesn't make sense.

It's wrong if it hurts you. If weed causes you to become less focused and less alert, working like an escape from reality, this "escape" will hurt you personally in the long run.

First, morality is contextual. What is immoral in Yemen or in the 1700’s America is not necessarily immoral today. So who’s definition of morality do you speak?
Second, is it not immoral to lock a person up for exercising their free will? For smoking or snorting a plant? If any immorality is done it’s by the lawmakers and the people who demonize other for what they don’t understand.

The world may not be, but everything we do with, in, or about it is brain based. — tim wood

To do something with it, there has to be an it. Most of the world is the it. The division is between our brains functioning in a mental way and the it--everything else that exists.

To do something with it, there has to be an it. Most of the world is the it. The division is between our brains functioning in a mental way and the it--everything else that exists. — Terrapin Station

One last try. How do you know anything about the "objective" world? Not do, but how. On your division of subjective-objective, you cannot, and that's the point.

@tim wood @Terrapin Station
Somehow this discussion of illegal drugs has morphed into a discussion that maybe should go under the Philosophy of Mind category.

But as long as we’re here, I’ll jump into the waters - hopefully I can clarify them instead of muddying them.

The crux of the difference here (as I’m seeing it) is that Tim is asserting that mental activity is ultimately based in the physical world, whereas Terrapin is asserting that there is something fundamentally different about mental activity.

I'm with Tim on this, and here's my reasoning:

We already have machines that can measure mental activity - albeit at a very crude level. Will these machines advance to the point where we can measure mental activity at such a fine granular level that we can distinguish pleasurable physiological responses from un-pleasurable ones? That remains to be seen, but in my opinion this is possible.

So while the statement “Coffee ice cream is good” is clearly a subjective opinion, the statement “Tim Wood likes coffee ice cream” is a description of a measurable/observable state of affairs - namely that when Tim consumes coffee ice cream it produces a physiological response that Tim describes as 'liking'.

Of course I could be wrong. It could be that there is some unknown factor that will prevent us from ever measuring mental activity at that fine level of granularity. We can speculate that perhaps there is some quantum mechanical thing going on - and any attempt to measure mental activity at this level of granularity alters the very thing we’re trying to measure.

If I have misrepresented either of you, please gently correct me. . . . :smile:

Pretty much - good "listening." My point is that Terrapin's division into mental and non-mental - which I appreciate him providing - is very problematic, and for his purposes untenable because inconsistent. His is a bit of a hash of philosophy c. 1725, that is, pre-Kant. But I appreciate your listening!

How do you know anything about the "objective" world? Not do, but how. — tim wood

That's very simple: you observe it via your senses.

The crux of the difference here (as I’m seeing it) is that Tim is asserting that mental activity is ultimately based in the physical world, whereas Terrapin is asserting that there is something fundamentally different about mental activity. — EricH

No, I'm not saying anything at all like that.* It's simply that we can create categories like "Fender amplifiers" as opposed to "everything else," or "Trees" as opposed to "everything else," etc.

The reason for bothering to do that with mind and everything else, whereas we don't usually do it with Fender amplifiers and everything else, is that (a) people, including frequently in a philosophical context, tend to reference mental stuff for obvious reasons, including that they want to talk about knowledge, about values, etc., and (b) people frequently say very confused things about mental phenomena versus other things, where they project mental phenomena onto other things, akin to supposing that you could use a tree as an amplifier.

(* Well, or if I'm saying something like that, it's in the same sense that I'd say "there's something fundamentally different about bookshelves and bacteria and stars and automobiles, etc."--a la everything has unique properties, and we can't just ignore that and pretend that everything has all properties in common.)

My point is that Terrapin's division into mental and non-mental - which I appreciate him providing - is very problematic, and for his purposes untenable because inconsistent. — tim wood

There's nothing problematic or inconsistent about it. Among the things in the world are brains, shoes, ships, sealing wax, cabbages, etc. It's a simple matter to locate properties/phenomena in each as opposed to the others (or as opposed to all others). That way you don't try making sauerkraut with your shoes, you don't try sealing a letter with a cabbage, and you don't look for a rock's evaluation of a musical piece.

How do you know anything about the "objective" world? Not do, but how.
— tim wood

That's very simple: you observe it via your senses. — Terrapin Station

Just exactly what is it? You do not yet seem to understand that you have a problem, here.

There's nothing problematic or inconsistent about it. — Terrapin Station

Only inconsistent if you make your division between mental and non-mental.

Just exactly what is it? — tim wood

A pronoun substitution for the objective world. The objective world is the nonmental world. You observe it via your senses. There's no problem there (aside from philosophers who haven't even managed to reach the object permanence stage of psychological development).

Only inconsistent if you make your division between mental and non-mental. — tim wood

Is it too much to specify an inconsistency?

Is it too much to specify an inconsistency? — Terrapin Station

Sure. According to you, you see a tree. But you never, ever, saw a tree in your whole life, and never did anyone else, ever. And this isn't a problem, except for people with "theories" like yours, who divide it up the way you do. You say the tree is objective, in the sense of being non-mental. But the fact is that whatever you take to be the tree, just is your mental representation.

But you never, ever, saw a tree in your whole life, and never did anyone else, ever. — tim wood

lol--that's nothing that I'm claiming (and it's rather ridiculous). At any rate, it's not an inconsistency to disagree with something that someone else is claiming. In order for me to be uttering an inconsistency, I have to both be claiming P and not-P.

But the fact is that whatever you take to be the tree, just is your mental representation. — tim wood

No. That's not at all a fact. Representationalism is wrong.

Why do you believe that representationalism is not wrong?

You're the guy with the problem. You claim

Facts are states of affairs. Ways that things are. Remember that the subjective/objective distinction refers to mental phenomena versus non-mental phenomena. So an objective fact is a state of affairs that is NOT mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

So what is not a mental phenomenon?