Again, it's not the consensus that leads to a statement's being true, though, is it? Although it might lead to our believing it to be true.
— Banno

Depends on what your definition of true is. — Echarmion

Well, indeed. If someone were to suppose that what is true is what is believed by the majority, I'm sure you and I would agree that they have not understood "true". We might dissuade them of their view by pointing out that sometimes the majority is wrong.

So that definition of "true" is wrong.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that introducing subjective and objective serves to hide more than it reveals.

a consensus of individual knowledge forms our shared physical reality. — Echarmion

D’accord.

a consensus of individual knowledge forms our shared physical reality. — Echarmion

Reality does not care what your consensus is.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that introducing subjective and objective serves to hide more than it reveals. — Banno

What would make you think so?

Threads such as this, in the main. There's so much confusion - I can't get no relief.

Gosh, Banno, can you think of any way, any whatsoever, to reduce confusion? Beyond ad baculum and variants, even as appealing & etc., as that sometimes seems?

:up: It is just a lot of confusion.

Yep. It's what I do.

That's an odd thing to say. There is a thread that I see, you see, Coben sees,

Now it can't just be in your head, since both Coben and I also see it. And further we each see the same thread - and post to it.

SO I'd go so far as to say that here you seem to be wrong. — Banno

And I'd go so far as to say that you're making a bunch of unjustified assumptions about what I and Coben see. What do you think you know, and how do you think you know it?

That seems to be wrong, too, as a general rule. WE do after all make incorrect conclusions from the available evidence.

What I want to emphasis here is that the evidence does not make something true; rather the evidence leads it our belief.

That is, that belief and truth are quite distinct. — Banno

But how do we establish truth in the context of physical reality? By making conclusions based on evidence. So the only way you know that a conclusion you made was wrong is if either you, or someone else, arrives at a different conclusion that includes the same evidence, i.e. falsification.

How do we know that the theories about Phlogiston were incorrect? Because we have new theories and a consensus that they were wrong.

Reality does not care what your consensus is. — Banno

One liners won't convince anyone. If you want to have a discussion, address my actual argument.

...unjustified assumptions — Echarmion

List 'em, then.

But how do we establish truth in the context of physical reality? — Echarmion

Notice that this is no longer about what is true, but what is established as true. The conversation has surreptitiously moved from truth to belief.

But that did address your argument.

List 'em, then. — Banno

Well for one you're assuming I am even looking at something. Perhaps my computer is reading the text out for me.

If I am looking, how do you know what language the text appears in to me? Perhaps it's translated. How do you know whether the formatting, colours, the order of posts etc. Is anything like it looks to you? I could be using a specific device, or a specific software, that you don't.

But most importantly you see a different thread because in your thread, you make different posts than I do in mine. You have a bunch of background information about you that I don't, and vice versa. You automatically know what you meant with your posts. I don't.

Notice that this is no longer about what is true, but what is established as true. The conversation has surreptitiously moved from truth to belief. — Banno

Because truth and belief are connected. Sure, you can have a notion of "objective truth" that is completely divorced from whatever anyone thinks about the world. But by that same token, it'd be completely empty. If there is no way to establish truth, then judging things as true or false is pointless. And aren't you the one complaining about unnecessary confusion?

If you refer to yourself as a "subject", and others refer to you as an "object", are we both talking about the same thing, or are we talking past each other? — Harry Hindu

No one can talk about me from my point of view, strictly speaking. But the other one doesn't talk about other person. He sees me from another point of view and this is me too.
But the point is how to bridge the gap between the two "I's". The answer is not in the wind of words but in common practice.

Well for one you're assuming I am even looking at something. Perhaps my computer is reading the text out for me. — Echarmion

OK - now, what is it that is being read out to you?

The thread.

Therefore there is a thread.

Perhaps it's translated. — Echarmion

What is it that is being translated?

The thread.

Therefore there is a thread.

you make different posts than I do in mine. — Echarmion

Demonstrably, I am replying to what you posted. How could that be if I did not see what you wrote? Sure, you and I ight differ as to our understanding of the thread...

What is it we disagree about?

The thread.

Therefor there is a thread.

In the very act of denying the thread, you show that it exists.

If you were to replace "the thread" with "the posts" or even "the words", then we might get closer to an agreement.

But for me, “reality” is merely the noun form of the adjective “real” which, in turn, is intended to signify “actually existing or occurring - rather than fictional” — javra

But if you use the same term to designate what is inside your mind and what is outside it, you will have to give additional explanations to avoid possible misunderstandings. The main explanation is that there are two types of reality, the subjective one, which occurs in your mind, and the objective one, which occurs outside it. You will have to correct the concept of truth, which will have to distinguish between a subjective truth and an objective truth. All this is easier resolved if we speak of objective and subjective and if we limit the concept of truth to the correspondence with something external to the ideas of my mind, this is to say, the reality. Or as a property of certain type of propositions, which is a formulation I like better.

As far as intersubjective reality is concerned, you should make it clear that it only refers to the fact that certain people share certain ideas, which is very different from those ideas referring to something outside their minds.

So many previous clarifications hinder a discussion that it would be easier if you used the terms as they are usually used in the field of philosophy. No one is forcing you to do this, but it would pave the way.

What I was pointing out is contrary to this, from you:

It seems fairly obvious that there is no "thread" as an object "out there".

That the thread has parts - posts and words - does not render it any less.

Yep. It's what I do. — Banno

How do you distinguish between ideas that refer to things outside of your mind and others that are entirely subjec... sorry, that have no external reference? I think this is an epistemologically inevitable distinction that is usually made by distinguishing subjective and objective. What is your choice? You're defending solipsism?

theoretically we can obtain a more accurate view of truth
— Possibility

Not too sure what you are doing here. Is it that the more "perceived potential information of a subject" there is, the better our definition of "true"? — Banno

No. The ‘subject’ I’m referring to here is the person experiencing, not the ‘truth’ in question. I realise this might be confusing, so I wanted to clear that up, first off.

If all we’re looking for is a consensus on the information we already have - ie. that what I see looks like an oasis - then we can verify only that limited perception of what is true. Increasing the value of this specific piece of information cannot tell us objectively if what I see truly is an oasis, for instance. We cannot automatically assume that our visual information is ‘true’; but we also cannot assume that the visual information of humans in general is ‘true’, objectively speaking. We’ve learned - through the pain, humiliation and loss of prediction error - that we must structure objective truth with more than visual information.

It seems obvious that there is a difference between the truth information of what we believe looks like an oasis and the truth information of what is an oasis. But recognising the difference between the truth information of what we believe is an oasis and what is an oasis can be more difficult.

It is in the information which specifically differs from our own perspective that we obtain a more accurate view of truth.
— Possibility

Of what is true, ir of what "true" is? De dicto or de re? — Banno

What is true - but this is an important distinction. Truth is not the same as a statement of belief. A statement of belief is a reduction of truth information, relative not just to the potential information perceived, but also relative to how we structure it - our conceptual systems, including language, values and logic - formed according to our subjective experiences, the events of our lives and how we perceive, value and structure those, too. There is truth information in any statement of belief, but what information is true may not be what we believe it to be when we make it. The truth is not in the words themselves, but in how those words relate to our unique perspective of what is true. Like a blind man describing the elephant’s trunk.

I'm not following the distinction you wish to make.

Lets take a clear subjective truth - I prefer vanilla milkshakes to most other flavours.

Now the milkshake is not a thing in my mind; that is, my preference is about milk shakes - that's not extraneous; it's very relevant...

I guess it might be argued that while the milkshake is outside of my mind, the preference is somehow in my mind. But that's not quite right, either; the preference is exactly that I will choose to drink the vanilla over the chocolate; the preference is demonstrated, instantiated, outside my mind.

And that cuts to the heart of what went wrong in the OP; the distinction between subjective and objective falls apart on analysis. Or better, it lends itself to philosophical misuse.

I'm not following the distinction you wish to make. — Banno

Sorry, are you discussing types of ideas or the concept of truth? They're two different problems. If we mix them up we'll have a mess. Of course.

I want to distinguish between two kinds of realities: one is ideas and the other is objects. The distinction is that if I think about a cake something happens inside my mind not outside and if my mother makes me a cake it's outside my mind. Fortunately.

How do you distinguish between the two things? That is, the idea of a cake and the cake itself. You have to do it whether you want to or not. Otherwise you risk to perish of starvation.

What I was pointing out is contrary to this, from you:

It seems fairly obvious that there is no "thread" as an object "out there".

That the thread has pats - posts and words - does not render it any less. — Banno

Right, but what you're doing seems to me to merely be a word game. Since you brought up "the thread", and I am reacting to that, linguistically "the thread" is the object of our discussion. That of course doesn't say anything about whether it's also an object in other respects.

This thread is just a collective stream of consciousness. How can consciousness be objective?

I want to distinguish between two kinds of realities: one is ideas and the other is objects. The distinction is that if I think about a cake something happens inside my mind not outside and if my mother makes me a cake it's outside my mind. Fortunately. — David Mo

I just finished cooking a chocolate cake. True story.

It's not in my mind. It's in the kitchen. Except for the bit I ate.

I know what chocolate cake is. I'm not so sure about an idea-of-chocolate-cake. Is it a thing? A thing in my mind? But then is the thing in my mind the very same as the thing in your mind? All sorts of complexities ensue...

So I'm not convinced that the distinction between an external reality, out there in the world, and a internal reality, hidden form view in my mind, is going to help make sense of the way things are.

I'd go so far as to diagnose such talk as a misuse of "real". Like most philosophical problems, it's word knots.

This thread is just a collective stream of consciousness. — emancipate

Have you seen one that isn't?
Not all debates are like internet forums. Some are even cooperative, orderly and respectful of others' opinions. Very boring.

That's the thing, isn't it - what counts as an object depends on the conversation.

If I am playing word games, it's because that's what much of philosophy is. So let's do it self-consciously - Sort through the word games and see which ones make sense.

Words like objective and subjective have a useful place in some conversations. But when they get attached to truth and reality and such, they take us up the garden path.

I know what chocolate cake is. I'm not so sure about an idea-of-chocolate-cake. Is it a thing? A thing in my mind? But then is the thing in my mind the very same as the thing in your mind? — Banno

Try eating the idea of a cake and you'll see the difference.

It's another thing whether ideas, which are not eaten, can correspond exactly to the thing outside. This is a very serious problem, but it is based on the fact that you must make the distinction between objective and subjective first. If you don't want to do that, apart from starving yourself, then answering the second question is meaningless. If you do the distinction the problem arises alone.