What baggage would that be?

So ↪Olivier5 is quite happy to bring intersubjectivity in to the discussion, not noticing how it is used by, for comparison, ↪Pfhorrest, ↪simeonz and ↪Mww. — Banno

what "inter-subjectively agreed" adds to just "agreed". — Isaac

Well put, but it suggests an answer, which is "overcoming differences of perspective". So it's useful, because it succinctly forestalls the unnecessary baggage of "subjective" and "objective".

So what baggage would that be? In a few well chosen words please?

You can do it.

Banno thinks that if two distinct frames of reference are made compatible through a transformation theory, then they become one. What Banno doesn't recognize is that this is just a matter of using theory to reconcile the differences between two distinct perspectives. And so it is just a matter of Banno saying that they are one, when they are treated by the theory as two, and that's hypocrisy.

We each have a private world — khaled

Anyone who cares to admit this for their own part, thereby participates in the intersubjective construction of private worlds.

In rather the same way that someone who admits to being single or married participates in the social construction of marital relations.

To admit is to let in. One admits a construct to one's private world in such a way that one's private world is itself a social construct that admits itself to itself.

Subjectivity is a social construct; subjectivity is intersubjective.

To admit is to let in. One admits a construct to one's private world in such a way that one's private world is itself a social construct that admits itself to itself — unenlightened

Public and private are two sides to the same coin. Can't have one without the other.

intersubjective construction of private worlds. — unenlightened

Subjectivity is a social construct — unenlightened

Have no clue what this means. Subjectivity is not socially constructed.

Subjectivity is a social construct; subjectivity is intersubjective. — unenlightened

Regardless of whether subjectivity is public or private, each of us has their own experiences. I cannot experience anybody else's pain and nobody else can experience my pain. Others can go through similar experiences and might be said to have felt the same types of pain as me, but not the same tokens of pain as me. This is what I understand "subjectivity" to mean in this context. The individuality of my body and my experiences is not a social construct, especially given that a society is a community of individuals, each with their own pains and viewpoints

Nor does there seem to be any difficulty outside of philosophy tutorials in moving from perception-of-shoe to shoe. — Banno

There shouldn’t be, even within philosophy, which doesn’t give a shit about what is known. Your handy-dandy little formula is mere memory; you musta already known what a shoe is in order to say “perception-of-shoe”. To be perfectly consistent, you are left with “perception-of-x to x”, which makes explicit you can never learn anything at all, if left to your own cognitive devices; for you, x can never be anything but x. And if every human ever, uses that formula.......where in the HELL did “shoe” even come from in the first place?????

Consider this, mon ami: your rational methodology bears striking resemblance to Hume and his “constant conjunction” theory, published a half century earlier than the epistemological philosophy I’ve been advocating, and chastised for as being outdated. Thing is.....humans haven’t significantly evolved since (+/-) the Neolithic era, insofar as the brain works pretty much the same way now as it did when we figured out how to get real food out of scruffy-assed seeds. I trust your intellectual capacity to draw the proper conclusions from such obvious implications.

So yes....things moved on. Things other than an irrefutable, thus entirely sufficient, scientific explanation for human experience. Without that, we are free to hypothesize as we wish. With proper regard to logic, of course. I hope you’ll agree that one is a fool to argue good logic just as much as one is a fool to argue good science.
——————-

the meaning is not private, but constructed and shared in that very use
— Banno

This suggests we always understand each other.
— Mww

I don't see how. There will obviously be misconstruel during the construction process. — Banno

I intended “we always understand each other” to indicate that if use alone was sufficient for both construction of meaning and sharing of it, I would only need your constructions given from your sharing in order to understand your meaning. Nevertheless, by saying there will always be misconstrueals merely admits an inconsistency in the your assertion that meaning is not private. You said it yourself: there will be misconstrueals in the construction process, but without mention of the sharing. Perhaps you were just trying to convey that we share our constructions and we construct what we share, which is true enough, but we certainly do not do both at the same time nor in the same way. It follows that if one of the two is private, then the meaning derived from it will be just as private. It can only be that if both construction and sharing are not private then meaning will not be private.
—————-

implying that all our words are subjectively invented. — Banno

Originally, they were. All of them. No words in Nature.
—————

the suggestion is that we treat of the way we use words.....

Yep, usually. Mutually intelligible language.

.......rather than a secret meaning we must guess. — Banno

Yep, as in codes. Not mutually intelligible language.

What’s common to both?

Idealism.

Banno thinks that if two distinct frames of reference are made compatible through a transformation theory, then they become one. What Banno doesn't recognize is that this is just a matter of using theory to reconcile the differences between two distinct perspectives. And so it is just a matter of Banno saying that they are one, when they are treated by the theory as two, and that's hypocrisy. — Metaphysician Undercover

1+1=2.

Banno thinks that if two distinct numbers are made compatible through an equation, then they become one. What Banno doesn't recognise is that this is just a matter of using an equation to reconcile the differences between two distinct numbers. And so it is just a matter of Banno saying that they are one, when they are treated by an equation as two, and that's hypocrisy.

Familiar territory. I don't think you will be helping the case for subjectivism.

I'm heading in that direction, but that might be a bit too far ahead.for those here to see.

I cannot experience anybody else's pain and nobody else can experience my pain. — Luke

Is this pivotal for you?

Suppose a clever surgeon wired your arm to mine, so that if I stick a pin in my thumb, we both feel it.

Is there anything here that is logically contradictory?

Is it a necessary fact that you do not feel my pain? Is it true in all possible worlds?

You might also Google Mirror Neurones and mirror-touch synesthesia.

It seems that your contention has been falsified. Perhaps even by intersubjective observation...!

Subjectivity is not socially constructed. — khaled

Why are you so sure? Why so certain?

The myth has you in its thrall; how could things be otherwise?

if use alone was sufficient for both construction of meaning and sharing of it, I would only need your constructions given from your sharing in order to understand your meaning. — Mww

That's not how it works. We work together to build the use of a word.

implying that all our words are subjectively invented.
— Banno

Originally, they were. All of them. No words in Nature. — Mww

SO... your claim is that originally there were words used only by one person... a private language?

What do you think they did with these words? What function could they have had - the individual grunted in a particular way each time they saw a particularly delicious fruit?

No; they grunted, and others understood this as indicative of ripe fruit.

Language is not private.

I cannot experience anybody else's pain and nobody else can experience my pain.
— Luke

Is this pivotal for you? — Banno

In terms of subjectivity? Yes.

Suppose a clever surgeon wired your arm to mine, so that if I stick a pin in my thumb, we both feel it. — Banno

Suppose Banno had to invent a fanciful hypothesis to avoid my argument.

Unless we were one and the same person in this scenario, then we would each be feeling our own individual pains, even if they both occurred at the same time, both occurred in the same locations in each of our bodies, and felt qualitatively the same to each of us. That’s what subjectivity is - it’s not our shared public (or “inter-subjective”) language.

It seems that your contention has been falsified. — Banno

Uhh how?

Uhh how? — Luke

I'm not going to spoon feed you.

You might also Google Mirror Neurones and mirror-touch synesthesia. — Banno

I'm not going to spoon feed you. — Banno

How are mirror neurons relevant to each of us having our own individual pains? Do you want to argue that we don’t? Or that it’s not subjective? I mean, it’s fairly self-evident.

I'm nonplussed. I was expecting some ad hoc notion to defend your hypothesis; instead you deny the facts.

...And this becomes about you, not about the argument. There is no point in continuing a discussion when you deny the facts: other people can fee your pain.

Google Mirror Neurones and mirror-touch synesthesia. Get back to me when you have something to say.

You’re nonplussed and were expecting something else, but I’m making it about me? My argument stands if you ever want to try and counter it.

Other people cannot literally feel my pain, and you cannot literally feel anyone else’s. The expression “I feel your pain” can only be figurative. In empathy one can only feel one’s own pain, even if it is expressed or felt for others.

Other people cannot literally feel my pain, and you cannot literally feel anyone else’s. The expression “I feel your pain” can only be figurative. In empathy one can only feel one’s own pain, even if it is expressed or felt for others. — Luke

This view has been falsified. See Mirror Neurones and mirror-touch synesthesia.

This view has been falsified. See Mirror Neurones and mirror-touch synesthesia. — Banno

No. Visit your local emergency room. If you think you're feeling the pain of the patients, you're deluded.

I’ve already explained why that fails:

Unless we were one and the same person in this scenario, then we would each be feeling our own individual pains, even if they both occurred at the same time, both occurred in the same locations in each of our bodies, and felt qualitatively the same to each of us. — Luke

... and there's the expected ad hoc hypothesis.

Ok, that renders your view irrefutable; you've just defined pain as a private sensation.

The twist is, you cannot therefore use the privacy of pain as evidence for subjectivism - at least, not without a vicious circularity.

Idealism — Banno

Naaah.

I cannot experience anybody else's pain and nobody else can experience my pain. — Luke

The expression “I feel your pain” can only be figurative. In empathy one can only feel one’s own pain, even if it is expressed or felt for others. — Luke

Imagine we agree about this. You me and Banno. How is that not intersubjective?

Imagine I don't think I have my own pain, and Banno thinks he has your pain. Are these our private subjectivities, about which no disagreement is possible?

Banno thinks that if two distinct numbers are made compatible through an equation, then they become one — Banno

You expect me to believe that? Two distinct things become one and the same thing, if they are assumed to be equal. No, equal things are not the same thing. Doesn't anyone have any respect for the law of identity anymore?

Whoosh!