Why shouldn't the sharing bring the aspect into being, as it where - the child learns the aspect in the process of learning to talk in a certain way. A child does not have a notion of "four" in its mind that it learns to match up with the word "four"; it learns what four is by moving beads, colouring squares and using the word. — Banno

But how would this behavior be possible unless human brains were capable of forming concepts? The problem with behaviorism is that it treated the brain as a black box, where the only relevant thing was matching behaviors to stimuli. But we know from computational models that the black box matters for producing the behavior. You don't get an output without some sort of mapping function. That's analogous to whatever roles the brain plays processing sensations internally, and producing whatever behavior makes sense for the individual organism.

Roles like perception, cognition, memory, imagination, motor control, speech production and what have you. Without that, you don't get the behavior.

We each experience our own unique subjectivity, — Janus


Do we? If you can't know my private subjective experience, you can't know that it is unique. — Banno

I know your subjective experience is unique because it follows from the fact that no two entities are identical.

When the doctor asks me what the pain feels like, and I answer "sharp and stabbing", the pain doesn't become sharp and stabbing only after I say it aloud. — Luke

...because you already learned to use "sharp" and "stabbing"...

You are a word fetishist. — Olivier5

Sure am.

SO tell me, if the word choice is insignificant, why "intersubjective" rather than "objective" or even "shared"?

When we find evidence that we're not all the same it's a little jarring. — frank

Very true. I still remember my surprise as a small kid when a friend told me he didn't like oranges at all. I could not understand that. I could not even explain to him how obviously good oranges tasted...

In other words, as you take into account more and more different perspectives, as your intersubjectivity gets more and more comprehensive, you get closer and closer to objectivity, and "at infinity", i.e. if you could ever perfectly account for absolutely every perspective, that would be objectivity. — Pfhorrest

Physics by poll vote...

SO tell me, if the word choice is insignificant, why "intersubjective" rather than "objective" or even "shared"? — Banno

Because it describes very precisely what happens. It's therefore apt and correct. "Shared" is too vague and objectivity is different from intersubjectivity.

Your turn: what is it in that word that scares you so much?

If you only care about that which can be put into words, — SophistiCat

Oh, that't be dreadful. The unspoken stuff is of the highest import... If you are attributing that view to me, I have been misunderstood.

Thanks for the account of smell and taste; further examples of how developing a word game around an activity also increases the capacity to discriminate.

;

Because it describes very precisely what happens. — Olivier5

et alia;

Perhaps an example: each of us observes, say, a Newton's Cradle. The supposition is that we each have our own private sensations, which we then translate into a description of the way the cradle moves, put into words and find that we agree on the words used... is that the idea?

Why shouldn't the sharing bring the aspect into being,
— Banno

Makes the whole world be conjured into being by us inhabiting it together. — fdrake

...that's close. Our talk about the word is conjured into being by use engaging in conversation... the limits of our language are the limits of our world.

SO tell me, if the word choice is insignificant, why "intersubjective" rather than "objective" or even "shared"? — Banno

"Objective" is obviously too strong, and "shared" is synonymous with "intersubjective"; so what's the problem?

What is it that is subjective in our observations of the cradle? — Banno

The fact that each observation of the object is an observation made by a subject.

and "shared" is synonymous — Janus

with... "objective" or "intersubjective"?

Perhaps an example: each of us observes, say, a Newton's Cradle. The supposition is that we each have our own private sensations, which we then translate into a description of the way the cradle moves, put into words and find that we agree on the words used... is that the idea? — Banno

What is it that is subjective in our observations of the cradle?

It seems I thought it was obvious that I mean "shared" to be synomous with "intersubjective". Just in case that isn't right, I fixed it.

Cheers; What is it that is subjective in our observations of the cradle? What is it that is not shared in our observations of the cradle?

Each unique perspective is not, cannot be, shared.

Each unique perspective is not, cannot be, shared. — Janus

Thanks for responding.

I don't understand. You can see the same Cradle I see; what is it that you see that I don't?

"perspective" - do you just mean that you see it from the left, and I from the right? But I can understand that, and make adjustments; we could even swap places, if it helped.

So what is it that is not shared?

Yes, that's the general idea.

Then, again, what is it that is not shared?

You don't know that the cradle appears exactly the same to both of us. And even if it does, no perceptual moment of it can ever be exactly the same as any other perceptual moment, much less somehow "shared'. What can be shared is what we say about the cradle, because we speak a common language. But even then each of us will have slightly different interpretations of what is said; there is no absolute fixed meaning in language. To give you another perspective on the uniqueness of individual perceptions, look what happens if we are each set the task of drawing the cradle.

Meaning?

You don't know that the cradle appears exactly the same to both of us. — Janus

...and I don't know that it doesn't. Why preference the former? Besides, all indications are that we do see the same thing; and if we do not, we can talk about that, too; indeed, that is pivotal to progress.

And any slightly different interpretations of what is said can be ironed out, as well; or ignored, if they make no difference.

It seems to me that one cannot say what it is that is not shared; and hence that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

I invite you to join in the conversation with @Janus.

Intersubjectivity is a very useful concept, especially in philosophy of science, in that it bridges the gap between subjectivity and objectivity.It explains how we build some extent of objectivity NOT by deleting the observer (the subject) but on the contrary, by ADDING other observing subjects and comparing MANY subjective observations. — Olivier5

I want to understand what is added by the word subjective: compare the following to what you said above:
It explains how we build some extent of objectivity NOT by deleting the observer but on the contrary, by ADDING other observers and comparing MANY observations.

I've dropped the word "subjective"; what difference did it make?

...because you already learned to use "sharp" and "stabbing"... — Banno

I was responding to your question “why shouldn’t the sharing bring the aspect into being” which suggests a form of idealism, and in this case suggests that the pain is brought into existence by the use of the concept or coining of the word. I don’t believe that there was no pain felt (or no other sensory experiences to be had) prior to the concepts(s)/word(s) being coined. It seems like other animals have at least some of these experiences without language.

SO what do you make of 's discussion of smell and taste?

And going back to this...

Seriously though, I think it's possible there could be both private and shareable aspects of subjectivity. We can use language to share some aspects, but other aspects cannot be shown or otherwise shared. — Luke

What is it that is not shared? Take the example of Newton's cradle, for instance. Do you agree with ?

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity is that information about location relative to the body is absent in an objective view (ie. a view from nowhere vs. a view from somewhere). — Harry Hindu

I think Rousseau has the germ of a good point here - objectivity as the view not from nowhere, but from anywhere.

I want to understand what is added by the word subjective: compare the following to what you said above:
It explains how we build some extent of objectivity NOT by deleting the observer but on the contrary, by ADDING other observers and comparing MANY observations.

I've dropped the word "subjective"; what difference did it make? — Banno

Why, then you do not mention the fact that each individual observer is necessarily subjective and therefore fallible. The reason one needs more than one observer is thus obscured, it's not explicit anymore.

then you do not mention the fact that each individual observer is necessarily subjective and therefore fallible. — Olivier5

It's fallible because it is subjective? But that's not right. Let's look at something really subjective - that pain in your toe, for example. You cannot be wrong about that; it's one of the few places were certainty is certain...

What is it that is not shared? — Banno

One’s subjective experience. My pain is not your pain.

fallible because it is subjective? But that's not right. Let's look at something really subjective - that pain in your toe, for example. You cannot be wrong about that; it's one of the few places were certainty is certain... — Banno

What about the case of the amputee who feels pain in his missing arm? And people can also lie, or exaggerate.