I see the computer with my eyeballs. It's not inside of my eyeballs, or inherently eyeballish. — Pneumenon
So long as you do not take this to mean that you cannot predict anything. — Banno
It depends on the goal. If the goal was accomplished, how can it be said that it wasn't accurate? — Harry Hindu
Your eyeballs merely react to some photons. It's your mind that sees the computer. And, even according to 20th century physics, the computer isn't really a continuous object. — Echarmion
So long as you do not take this to mean that you cannot predict anything.
— Banno
I don't :wink: — Echarmion
I used to think that vagueness and subjectivity pervaded every statement to some small degree.
But, that's really a silly assumption. Is there any serious objection to my statement that I am currently using a computer? — Pneumenon
Well, presumably he doesn't - there are, after all, only perceptions-of-replies, subjective stuff, not objective at all. — Banno
First it's not that someone would object, necessarily to the facty thingie, it's all the interpreted experiences of 'you doing that' and what it means that will necessarily be subjective. Subjective does not mean wrong, it means that what you and we think when you make that statement and we read it likely differs for each of us (the image in our mind, coupled with a very distant feeling (since it is not a detailed, specific or unique bit of information)...iow the internal phenomenological experience we will all have will be idiosyncratic and subjective. None of this means we disagree or would then act in ways that others would think showed we were not connected well, objectively, to what is going on. Second, and I suppose overlapping, is that there a philosophical positions implicit in that simple statement. Again, they need not be wrong, but what is implicit in 'you are using' rather than 'the computer and I are interacting it causing me do things, me causing it to do things'. We likely have more or less folk theories of what it is happening. They may be right, partiall right, facets of 'what is happening', the view of a timebound homonid who thinks in absolute time and space and not the only way to think of it. None of this means that the image, should we think in images, of you sitting at a computer typing (probably?!) is wrong, but implicit ideas about reailty are built in that may or may not be right, or as objective as something else.Is there any serious objection to my statement that I am currently using a computer? — Pneumenon
Right. So a crash wouldnt happen because of the design of the plane, but for some other reason that has nothing to do with the design of the plane.If there was a chance it'd go wrong, then the prediction wasn't completely accurate. A well designed plane can still crash. — Echarmion
You're making objective claims about how the world is for everyone, as if you have a view from everywhere.We're all subjects imagining other subjects doing subjective stuff. It's subjects all the way down.
But seriously, there is a difference between subjective, intersubjective, and objective. The objective part here is that we're somehow exchanging information. The intersubjective part is that we're using an Internetforum, computers, the English language etc. And then we each have a subjective interpretation of what is said and why, with a small model of what the person saying it might be like.
Unless you're specifically doing metaphysics or epistemology, there isn't any reason to differentiate between objective and whatever is intersubjective for all humans. — Echarmion
Yes. At least some of you are getting it.The funny thing is, any assertions we make are assertions of objectivity. So if we say we are subjective beings, then we're making an objective truth claim. So in order for us to say that we are subjective beings we have to assume there is objectivity that we can utilise in the first place. — Cidat
"Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone. — Harry Hindu
Objective truth or objective reality may exist, that is, there may exist truths that are true regardless of perspective or bias, but is it possible for a perceiver to be provably objective about truth? It's one thing to try to be objective, but another to be provably so. Does perception require some assumption? — Cidat
The funny thing is, any assertions we make are assertions of objectivity. So if we say we are subjective beings, then we're making an objective truth claim. So in order for us to say that we are subjective beings we have to assume there is objectivity that we can utilise in the first place. — Cidat
Right. So a crash wouldnt happen because of the design of the plane, but for some other reason that has nothing to do with the design of the plane. — Harry Hindu
You're making objective claims about how the world is for everyone. — Harry Hindu
"Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone. — Harry Hindu
If this is an assertion about epistemology...iow something in the family 'given the fact that we perceive in this manner and...(other reasons). then we cannot know if our assertions are objective or subjective'The claim isn't necessarily "we are subjective beings". It could just be "we don't know whether or not our experiences are objective". They might be, but we cannot just assume they are. — Echarmion
...which is part of the world. Your knowledge of the world, accurate or not, is part of the world.No, I am not making claims about the world, but rather claims about our ability to know the world. — Echarmion
Unless the person saying it uses it as a general statement of doubt, in the form of "everything is subjective, including this statement". — Echarmion
How is this statement useful? Subjectivity is essentially making category errors, of projecting mental properties, like color and taste, onto things that don't have mental properties."everything is subjective, including this statement". — Echarmion
If this is an assertion about epistemology...iow something in the family 'given the fact that we perceive in this manner and...(other reasons). then we cannot know if our assertions are objective or subjective'
then that is still an objective statement. — Coben
...which is part of the world. Your knowledge of the world, accurate or not, is part of the world. — Harry Hindu
Doubt is part of the world.
You don't seem to understand that your mind's state is part of the world. — Harry Hindu
assume that the person has an objective reference point in the first place and is going exclusively by that reference point. — Cidat
So the concept of objectivity requires some basic assumptions. — Cidat
Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone." is in my opinion the best argument in favor of the ultimate existence of objective truth. — Cidat
There you go, that would be another posited-as-objective facet.What's the object being referred to? Epistemology is about my knowledge as a subject. Substituting "we" for "I" is based on the assumption that human minds are alike. — Echarmion
I am not sure what you mean by the object being referred to. I was saying that what I just quoted, if it is saying that 'we don't (which might mean 'can't') know whether or not our experiences are objective' then it is making a claim about reality and an claim to objectivity. I actually think it might make more sense to replace 'experiences' in that sentence. I don't know what I would be saying if I said my experience was objective. My conclusion, my idea, my assertion, that seems more like something that could be objective when contrasted with subjective (ideas, conclusions...etc.) It's a bit like you don't have true or false things, but rather true or false statements."we don't know whether or not our experiences are objective". — Echarmion
The objective part here is that we're somehow exchanging information. The intersubjective part is that we're using an Internetforum, computers, the English language etc. And then we each have a subjective interpretation of what is said and why, with a small model of what the person saying it might be like. — Echarmion
There you go, that would be another posited-as-objective facet. — Coben
I am not sure what you mean by the object being referred to. I was saying that what I just quoted, if it is saying that 'we don't (which might mean 'can't') know whether or not our experiences are objective' then it is making a claim about reality and an claim to objectivity. — Coben
I actually think it might make more sense to replace 'experiences' in that sentence. I don't know what I would be saying if I said my experience was objective. My conclusion, my idea, my assertion, that seems more like something that could be objective when contrasted with subjective (ideas, conclusions...etc.) It's a bit like you don't have true or false things, but rather true or false statements. — Coben
I'm sorry, but your use of intersubjectivism is incorrect.
An objective proposition corresponds to the external objects.
The proposition that depends on the subject is subjective
The proposition that is common to several subjects is intersubjective. — David Mo
@David MoIt is not exact. Many theories in the past were predictive and are considered false today.
This seems very simple, but it starts to get complicated when we go to less simple propositions and theories than that. Mainly, because in science we cannot test isolated propositions, but a complex of theories and facts. — David Mo
Obviously, all this disappoints the metaphysicist who is looking for absolute objectivity or certainty. A chimera. — David Mo
You cannot technically predict anything with complete accuracy. Emotional reactions should not, in principle, be different. — Echarmion
You and I both perceive this post; we perceive the very same post.Yet, according to the perception game, these are two distinct perceptions of the same post. — Banno
One philosophical games tries to play this out as showing that it is the perception that is pivotal, not the post. As if it is the perception-of-this-post that is real, not the post. We never have the post-in-itself; all we have is the perception-of-post. — Banno
No. It's not. You keep making objective statements, seemingly without knowing it. Each sentence you just wrote is an objective statement about you, and you are part of the world.That's like saying New York isn't part of America, but part of the universe. My ability to know things is a subjective ability. It might be objective to some other observer, but that's beside the point. — Echarmion
Are qualia and preferences part of the world? Do qualia and preferences establish causal relationships with the world? If not, then you aren't part of the world. You would be non-existent. Imaginings and delusions cause people to behave in certain ways. Imaginings and delusions are themselves caused by states-of-affairs in the world.So according to you, literally every statement is objective, including statements about qualia and preferences? — Echarmion
We don't know when statements are true until we can all establish some evidence or proof of the claim. The claim is still objective in the sense that it is about the world as if from a view from everywhere (God's-eye view). It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong. People are asserting things all the time, as if it were true, because they are making arguments for it, and to disagree would be wrong. When making an argument for some view, you are asserting truth while at the same time saying that anyone that disagrees is wrong.“Everything is subjective” doesn’t even need to be asserted as holding for everyone, to be an objective statement in itself. In at least one established theoretical human cognitive system, all cognitions are judgements, all judgements are objective, and all judgements are objective statements in form, when passed to an external observer.
Thing is.....”everything is subjective”, while being a valid objective statement, cannot be an objective truth, insofar as it is impossible that every thing is subjective. On the other hand, “any human knowledge of things is a subjective condition” would be an objective truth, iff that statement holds across the entire human domain without exception, which, theoretically, it does because its refutation is immediately self-contradictory under the same circumstances by which the statement was thought in the first place. — Mww
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.