Subjects and objects

Benj96

I am a subject (I have awareness of the world, emotions and feelings). I am also an object (I have a material body).

Other people are subjects. They are also objects.

The universe is full of objects. The universe also contains subjects. Therefore it is part object, part subject (at the minimum).

The universe is objectified by subjects with science: objective method, laws, principles of chemistry and physics.
The universe is the subject of our objectivity (through precise measurement).

The universe is subjectified by objects - we as physical/material things declare that at the very least, we as part of the universe have subjectivity. Some subjectify the universe fully (panpsychism, god, theology, deities).

We as objects are subject to the universe (our environment) - we are acted upon by external factors/influences.

The universe is also the object of our subjectivity - our awareness/behaviour/agency exerts influence on our environment.

A lot of wordplay here. But it seems that subjectivity and objectivity is a Interplay - a dynamic spectrum. Subjects presuppose their subjectivity (the measurer) in order to measure - to objectify everything. Subjects can also presuppose their objectivity (the measured) and subjectify everything (the measurer - theism/deism/universal consciousness etc)

In essence, if we objectify everything, we must find a principle or law that accounts for subjectivity (the hard problem). The issue is laws are not subjective.

Conversely, If we subjectify everything we must account for that which quantifies objective things (repeatability, consistency, constancy, replicability) - laws and principles. The problem here is subjectivity/vague intuitions/beliefs do not qualify as laws.

We qualify things by quantifying them. We also quantify things by qualifying them.

Such a strange existence indeed.

View Answer

TheMadMan

I am also an object (I have a material body). — Benj96

I don't fully agree to this.
And by your own sentence you don't either.
You say: I am an object and then you say I have this object.
Being and having are not the same.

Benj96

↪TheMadMan

what would you suggest in lieu?

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadMan

It is questionable to what extent others can be viewed as objects, because it is partly about external reality. Even one's own body, or parts, such as hands can be regarded as objects in the sense of being able to view their existence in the outer, material world.

Part of the importance of viewing others as subjects rather than simply as objects is recognising their values and meanings. It is the issue of people being ends rather than being seen as means. I remember going to see a careers officer just after I left school and during discussion he said to me, 'By now you should have got to the stage of just seeing other people as objects, like chairs and tables'. I simply didn't know what to say, to a careers officer who had such a philosophy approach...

TheMadMan

what would you suggest in lieu? — Benj96

Also to @Jack Cummins

If you subscribe to materialism, which says consciousness is emergent from matter then I can't suggest anything else.
If not, If consciousness' reality is independent of matter then: You are consciousness which is embodied/embedded/enacted in matter.
So you have a body and the body is you as an extension of you as consciousness.
So I wouldn't say I am an object if this object without me as consciousness "drops dead".

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadMan

I am not a materialist and, to some extent, when we look as subjective actors upon the world, it is an illusion, because inner and outer are not a dualistic split. As human beings we are embodied and the existence of others, is as subjective actors relating to one another, in a complex web of meanings.

TheMadMan

when we look as subjective actors upon the world, it is an illusion, because inner and outer are not a dualistic split. — Jack Cummins

I'm not clear what you mean by this. Could you expand?

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadMan

I mean that mind and body are not separate but joined in the phenomenological process of embodied life experiences.

punos

↪Benj96

It seems to me like every object is a subject and every subject is an object to some non-zero degree. It seems to be one of those things in the universe that has two opposing but complimentary sides, like cause and effect (every effect is a cause and every cause is an effect). These type of things at first are a little trickier to think about and parse than the average thing since they can't exist on their own (like magnetic monopoles).

TheMadMan

↪Jack Cummins

I agree. They are not separate.
So to an extent we are the body but I don't believe that we are the consciousness in the same way.
My disagreement to OP is that "I" as consciousness and "I" as a body are not on the same level of "me" as being.

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadMan

The 'I' may be like an underlying reflective narrator, as an aspect of subjectivity. The 'I'in being able to observe in the process of making meaning out of the various experiences. This 'I' as a central aspect of thinking was what lead Descartes to the, 'I think, therefore I am', may be what lead to the position of dualism.

TheMadMan

The 'I' may be like an underlying reflective narrator, as an aspect of subjectivity. The 'I'in being able to observe in the process of making meaning out of the various experiences. This 'I' as a central aspect of thinking was what lead Descartes to the, 'I think, therefore I am', may be what lead to the position of dualism. — Jack Cummins

This takes us to a deeper level.
I would say that the "I", as you put it, as a reflective narrator, the Descartes "I", is a construction created by the interaction of "I" as consciousness-without-content and matter (body, environment, culture etc.)

So, there is content-less subjectivity as pure awareness which through attention it interacts with matter thus creating the 'self' (reflective narrator), which is enacted in mind-body.

Benj96

Part of the importance of viewing others as subjects rather than simply as objects is recognising their values and meanings — Jack Cummins

Of course. And that is where ethics begins.

A empathiless psychopath dismantles a victim to see what's inside. He/she does it because its interesting to them maybe? I don't know. But to the rest of us we are horrified because they've murdered something of value to us - people. And we can empathise with the victim, their family, friends etc. We can reflect on what 8t must have felt like for the victim - the fear, the suffering. To us its a grotesque tragedy. To the psychopath they don't get what the big deal is. They may understand the theory/cultural reasoning of why its wrong but to them its only a theory.
So they repeatedly offend.

On a more cheery side to treating people as objects: Surgeons and doctors do it all the time, as they have an objective mechanical goal backed by scientific experiment to improve the physical workings/function of the body and bring about a state of improved health/quality of life.

And while surgeons/doctors may cause some harm/pain in their effort to cure, they generally have the greatest of empathy for people - bound by the hippocratic oath (something that defines the intrinsic subjective value of a person as well as the right intentions required to address their health needs).

So in essence, treating people objectively isn't always bad. But one requires the correct approach and intentions.

Benj96

'By now you should have got to the stage of just seeing other people as objects, like chairs and tables'. I simply didn't know what to say, to a careers officer who had such a philosophy approach... — Jack Cummins

Definitely a red flag. Sadly many CEOs, experts in capitalism, tech/data mining, lawyers etc see people as just that - objects to be manipulated to their own fiscal advantage.

Benj96

It seems to me like every object is a subject and every subject is an object to some non-zero degree. It seems to be one of those things in the universe that has two opposing but complimentary sides, like cause and effect (every effect is a cause and every cause is an effect). These type of things at first are a little trickier to think about and parse than the average thing since they can't exist on their own (like magnetic monopoles). — punos

Very true Punos. I agree. "harm" is a concept we apply to subjects rather than objects. And yet we can harm by stealing objects, by destroying the environment, because those objects are valued by subjects. Anything valued by a subject, when taken away, "harms/offends" that subject.

So in essence subjectivity is almost "extended" not only to individuals but to their possessions (objects).

"Self" in this case is not just the body. As much harm can be done indirectly by affecting objects that ultimately affect the well being of selves - individual or multiple.

The ecosystem is probably the best example. Our planet is typically seen as a resource (object) but treatment of that resource impacts the wellbeing/survival and security of all subjects. It seems then that the earth ought to be seen as a subject in its own right - which many people do: Gaia, mother nature, Pandora (avatar), God etc.

Everything is connected: objects and subjects. What ought we value? How ought we live?

Benj96

My disagreement to OP is that "I" as consciousness and "I" as a body are not on the same level of "me" as being. — TheMadMan

If they are not the same surely they can be separated? Can we take away ones consciousness without affecting their body in any way? Can we take away ones body without affecting their conscious experience in any way?

So far I think this is not possible. They're mutually dependent. At most I would agree that they are different facets if the same thing. 2 sides of one coin.
But if my body is working, then I'm probably aware, and if my body has been broken (brain trauma, severe illnesses, death etc, then probably my consciousness as that individual is also affected).

If they are truly separable, then we are talking about the afterlife. Where one's sense of self can fully be removed from the corpus.

Benj96

So, there is content-less subjectivity as pure awareness which through attention it interacts with matter thus creating the 'self' (reflective narrator), which is enacted in mind-body — TheMadMan

Would this content-less pure awareness continue as the body/material vessel decomposes at death and transfigures/is recycled back into the ecosystem?

As in, is the content-less pure awareness an intrinsic property of physical interactions, something that arises from energy and matter Interplay? This would separate it from identity (perception of self by discrete definitions or "content").

If the content-less pure awareness is a constant underlying manifestation of physical "living bodies", it suggests pan-psychism. That everything is capable of contentless pure awareness fundamentally but can only manifest as an identity/ agent through "being" a physical system. A body. A thing.

This point of view would knit well into ideas like Gaia, mother nature, or God.

Jack Cummins

↪Benj96

Gradually, I think that we are being seen more as objects within a system which is becoming more and more robotic. In the last couple of years, with so much becoming online that is more so. It is now becoming harder to even see a career objects as opposed to a bot. People are almost becoming outdated because they are seen as dysfunctional objects in comparison with machines. There are political aspects as well, with a question of whose subjectivities are considered important in the power hierarchy.

TheMadMan

If they are not the same surely they can be separated? — Benj96

I mean they are not on the same level of being.
Like sunlight and the sun. Sunlight is a radiation of the sun. It is the sun as emanation of it but it is not exactly the sun. (Idk how scientifically correct this is so take it just as a metaphor)

Can we take away ones consciousness without affecting their body in any way? Can we take away ones body without affecting their conscious experience in any way? — Benj96

Im not sure that this can be proven but consider this:
In a perfect sensory depravation chamber the body is "eliminated" from consciousness. But even then, one has the qualia of presence, here-ness, being.
I consider this a good indicator of consciousness without matter. Although I'm aware that in this instance there is still a brain working.

If they are truly separable, then we are talking about the afterlife. Where one's sense of self can fully be removed from the corpus. — Benj96

Would this content-less pure awareness continue as the body/material vessel decomposes at death and transfigures/is recycled back into the ecosystem? — Benj96

I would put it as an immaterial continuation. This doesn't mean that a self as an identity has an afterlife somewhere.
Imagine a person as a wave and with death the wave collapses into the ocean. The wave continues as the ocean but it does not identify as a wave anymore.

f the content-less pure awareness is a constant underlying manifestation of physical "living bodies", it suggests pan-psychism. That everything is capable of content-less pure awareness fundamentally but can only manifest as an identity/ agent through "being" a physical system. A body. A thing. — Benj96

Im not very familiar with panpsychism but I would not consider that everything has pure awareness/conciousness.
Different physical things obey different Laws of consciousness.
A stone, a cat and a human possess different capacities of embodying consciousness.

punos

Everything is connected: objects and subjects. What ought we value? How ought we live? — Benj96

I myself value the progress of evolution, and i live as though the whole of the universe is a subject, although an incomplete one. That subject (the universe) has a goal (a teleology) as it's object which in my view is the production of higher forms of integrated complexity ultimately in the form of something like "computronium" (turning objects into subjects).

Objects are those things that have not yet been integrated into subjects, and eventually the universe will become a fully integrated subject (fully conscious). I call this the Great Work like the alchemists and i would like to consciously help the universe do this in anyway i can as opposed to doing it unconsciously like most people do. People have no choice in this universe but to advance the goals of this universe since they are part of this universe, but to be conscious of the process and the choice is what i desire.

Alkis Piskas

I am a subject (I have awareness of the world, emotions and feelings). — Benj96

I agree with this.

I am also an object (I have a material body). — Benj96

I desagree with this.
How can an object have awareness?
How can you be a body and have a body at the same time?
Fortunately, only the second case is true! :smile:

Benj96

How can you be a body and have a body at the same time? — Alkis Piskas

Well I would say I am a body. My body has a brain - it is one part of my whole body. A brains purpose/ function is to have a conscious awareness. That would be in this case what a brain does.

Having a body - is a subjective perception - the product of the Brains function. The brains consciousness has an awareness of possessing a body.

They would be two sides of a one function. A body allows for a brain. A brain allows for the sensation of having a body. If a body breaks down/deranges, it cannot support its brain. If a brain breaks down/deranges - it is not compatible with its body and commits suicide.

Having something (that which consciousness possesses) and being something (consciousness) are compatible. I see no paradox here personally.

javi2541997

How can an object have awareness? — Alkis Piskas

It is a good question, indeed.

For me, it is very complex to answer. Since the moment that "awareness" is a humanistic concept, I doubt if an object is concious about itself. For example: we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us. I mean: our thinking of "the tables does exist" will not affect to the existence of the tables at all. They are not aware about anything. If they "exist" is because we give them a meaningful sense.

Benj96

↪punos

That's a very nice view. That the universe is consolidating its subjectivity and that we can further it or oppose it with futility.

My question then would be, in your opinion, why does the universe want to be fully conscious? And why wasn't it fully conscious from the beginning of that is the ultimate goal?

Benj96

A stone, a cat and a human possess different capacities of embodying consciousness. — TheMadMan

Are we not inherently biased in that the only form of consciousness we can know is our own? If there were multiple forms of consciousness (such as that of a cat) and we are but one, how do we measure others without making direct comparison and conclusion based on our own?

In essence, if our only means to make sense of consciousness is to anthropomorphise it, is that not very limiting. Like measuring what is human-like in a stone. A stone could equally qualify what is stone-like in a human.

TheMadMan

↪Benj96

I am not assuming how it is like to be a stone or a cat. I only maintain that it's experience is not like human's. I would say that's a fair deduction.

Benj96

. There are political aspects as well, with a question of whose subjectivities are considered important in the power hierarchy. — Jack Cummins

In a dictatorship, the only subjectivity of importance is that if the dictator. Everyone else are mere pawns at the whim of autocracy. A democracy on the other hand favours the proportionate influence of an individuals say - that is to say every vote counts towards to collective outcome/decision.

Hierarchies are not neccesarily bad. It's how they come about that matters - by force or by collective choice.

Benj96

I am not assuming how it is like to be a stone or a cat. I only maintain that it's experience is not like human's. I would say that's a fair deduction. — TheMadMan

I agree. If a stone has experience at all it is for sure not the same as a humans. But we are philosophers, stones are not, as far as we can ascertain, philosophers stone aside lol.

What I mean to say is that either consciousness is a product of the material, and a stone - being material - is not removed from that, or, consciousness is separate from the material, then we must assume it is some strange fundamental, one that can be begotten by complexity of material processes, enhancing the effects of it, as sentient agents can exert huge influence on their world through being conscious.

In either case, consciousness exists, how it exists, and how its effects are amplified are up for debate, but its clear that natural laws permit its existence, if not neccesitate it.

That to me is quite profound.

Benj96

It is a good question, indeed.

For me, it is very complex to answer. Since the moment that "awareness" is a humanistic concept, I doubt if an object is concious about itself. For example: we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us. I mean: our thinking of "the tables does exist" will not affect to the existence of the tables at all. They are not aware about anything. If they "exist" is because we give them a meaningful sense.
42m — javi2541997

If no one thinks a table exists or rather if no one has ever seen/encountered/made a table does it still exist?

Is a table natural or is it a product of human consciousness?

Furthermore, if a table did exist, but no one ever saw or used it, would we naturally conclude it doesn't exist? In this case it does, regardless. We just cannot appreciate its form or function therefore for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Meaning for me is applied: it is something born out of utility and/or form - both of which are dependent on a conscious agent.

punos

My question then would be, in your opinion, why does the universe want to be fully conscious? And why wasn't it fully conscious from the beginning of that is the ultimate goal? — Benj96

I don't think it started off wanting to be conscious, it had no choice but to develop consciousness. In the same way that a baby before being conceived had no opinions about existing or not, and had no choice in the matter. By goal i mean the inevitable result of the physical laws within this universe, such as the inevitability of the laws of biology producing a child after conception. Everything develops from simpler to more complex over time, and God or the universe is no different in my opinion. As it develops it becomes more efficient at producing its own structure. It's like climbing a latter while at the same time building the latter. First create the rung, then stand on that rung and create the next rung, so on and so forth. I suspect that the ultimate goal in this universe is the production of a 'perfect consciousness', but for what?

I further suspect that this universe is embedded in a multiverse ecosystem full of other universes at different stages of development, born from indeterminate chaos. I tend to think of our universe at this juncture as something like a cosmic egg with a developing consciousness inside. I speculate that when the universe becomes fully integrated that it will 'hatch' or be 'born' into a 'society' of universes or gods; to do what? I'm not sure yet, it's most probably something we can't even begin to imagine.

If i were to stretch my imagination a little further, i can see these multitudes of universes coming together to form new structures even more complex than any one universe existing at our level of development can have. It may be that entire universes are the 'atoms' of another higher thing. The human mind gives out at this point... to be continued by AI.

TheMadMan

In either case, consciousness exists, how it exists, and how its effects are amplified are up for debate, but its clear that natural laws permit its existence, if not neccesitate it. — Benj96

I agree. I can't imagine how a thinking human being can say that consciousness doesn't.

But it also doesn't make any sense to me how consciousness is emergent from matter.
That would mean that matter precedes it.
How can matter without any form of intelligence -since in this case consciousness is emergent- create something like consciousness, which is intelligence. It's like a sculpture creating the sculptor.

No matter how I go through it, science, philosophy or religion, consciousness always has to be fundamental and not emergent.

Subjects and objects

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions