It depends on how you define the term conscious.

Either consciousness is decidable or it is undecidable.

If consciousness is decidable then solving the problem of other minds simply means discovering the correct algorithm of consciousness.

If consciousness is undecidable then we can never be sure if we or anybody else is consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

Well my point was this...
In theory traditional news media was not bias by design even if it becomes somewhat bias in practice.

That is not true in the information age, the news media you are exposed to is bias by design.

I think that is a real issue worthy of public consideration.

I disagree.

It should be very easy to demonstrate if the institution rates women according to sexual attractiveness or not.

It disagree, it is not western thinking that has honed in on such things, it is practical necessity.

I disagree.

I think it would be easy to demonstrate how rating women according to sexual attractiveness is not a policy condoned by Harvard guidelines even if it is not explicitly stated.

If the code of conduct states that the student is expected to behave as a representative of the institution and the institution does not rate women according to sexual attractiveness than that to me is sufficient to communicate expectations.

My point was that there exists no method for demonstrating religious claims.

With science the reasonable skeptic can reproduce results by applying the method.

With religion the same is not true.

For example the skeptic does not necessarily have god appear before him through prayer.

It is why when you become ill or injured you go to a hospital to be treated with science rather than a monastery to be treated with prayer.

One method produces reliable results.
The other...significantly less so.

If religious methodologies were effective in reproducing results then there would be something interesting to debate.
But that this is not the case there is nothing interesting to debate.

The problem is the term fitness in the context of eugenics is often defined normative.

For example the Nazi's deemed jews to be unfit.

To presume to know what biological traits are the most fit objectively is to presume to have all knowledge about nature and evolution.

Sorry I am skeptical that any one can know what traits are best suited for reproduction and what traits are not.

I doubt anybody could know such thing because it implies there is some objective goal of evolution.

But the problem here is that you are not a human being in an independent world. Because your body and the surrounding universe, where every other human being exists, is entirely constituted by your own experiences. — lambda

There is no way to prove this logically.

If it were true there would be no way to prove anything logically.
Exclusive self reference leads to an ill defined infinite regress.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Self-Recursion.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/

If we can reach any logical conclusion then this means that in reality we are not restricted exclusively to self reference.

That means that necessarily there is something which exists independently of our own minds.

It is simple.
Again the school obviously does not rate women this way so obviously it is not in keeping with school values.

The school is not being unreasonable in expectations in my opinion.

So, no, I don't agree that guidelines must explicitly state that you should not rate women on scale in accordance with your opinions about their sexual attractiveness as a representative of the school.

Perhaps you believe that such guidelines should be exactly worded.

I think that would be a disservice because in the reality of a work environment such things will not be explicitly stated and these young men will be expected to exercise their better judgement.

If this had happened in a professional setting it could result in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

These young men should be learning what is expected of them as adults in a professional setting, letting them slide for childish behavior would be detrimental to their development in my opinion.

They need to learn how to meet the expectations of the institutions they will represent.

There is nothing unreasonable about that.

I did answer.

That is a matter of common sense.
There is no need for the school to state explicitly that as a representative of the school you should not rate women according to your opinions about their sexual attractiveness.

I disagreed with you that it should be necessary to do this because I believe it is reasonable for the school to expect of these young men to be capable of employing such judgement without explicit guidance.

They are old enough to understand what is expected of them and to understand that failure to uphold such expectations results in consequences.

Again I don't agree that what they did was excusable because again they did not represent exclusively themselves, which would be arguably excusable sure, but they also represented their school and therefor must take into account what expectations their school will have of them as representatives.

Are you saying it is not reasonable for the school to expect such things of it's representatives unless it is strictly stated?

Also consider how it will look for the institution if they do nothing.
It would then appear that the school does condone such things.


Of course I disagree with the view that the school must state explicitly that you should not rate women according to sexual attractiveness, it should be obvious from the school's own practices that to do such a thing is not representative of the schools values.

Harvard does not rate it's female staff and students according to opinions about the sexual attractiveness of those women, so it should be obvious to these boys that doing so that it is not in keeping with Harvard's values to do so.

Rather than focus on what in particular is the content that is being filtered for our consumption we should focus on the fact that companies are attempting to manipulate what we are exposed to without our consent or even knowledge.

I agree to an extent with one caveat.

In the modern world it is possible that you are exposed exclusively to information that is tailored for your tastes.
You can essentially be surrounding by only that news which confirms your biases.

Google, facebook, and many online companies, implement filtering algorithms that filter the content you are exposed to in order to expose you to things you are likely to approve of and eventually spend money on.

If only monks can reproduce and confirm then that is not knowledge.
Knowledge would indicate that any person can conduct the experiment and produce the same results.
Not just monks.

I disagree.

It is common sense really.
The young men are likely expected to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the values of the school.

There is no way the school would condone such a rating system of women even if they don't explicitly state that you should not, as a representative of the school, rate women according to your opinions about their sexual attractiveness.

These guys are representing the school and common sense should have informed them that the school would not condone such things.

They obviously were not concerned with taking that duty of representing the school and it's values seriously and so they should face the consequences for failing.

I completely disagree that such things must be stated explicitly in the guidelines before these young men can be held accountable.
They used poor judgement, there is no argument about that.
They knew that if their activities were exposed it would reflect poorly upon them as representatives of the school.

The school ought to penalize these young men for that failure or the school risks the appearance that they condone such behavior.

The school cannot condone such behavior so it must penalize these young men in order to demonstrate that these young men's actions do not represent the schools values.

I am sorry you are having difficulty grasping the issue.
Maybe this article about self referencing will help you understand.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/

What I am saying logically has to do with self reference and infinite regress.

If all you have is self reference then you wind up with an ill define infinite regress which never reaches any conclusion.
So you can't conclude logically that the only thing that exists is the self if all you have is self reference because that self reference will regress infinitely.

If solipsism was actually true then in reality there would be no way to reference anything without an ill defined infinite regress (because everything would be self referencing).

However the fact that we can reference things like self and not self without infinite regress means that we can prove with logical certainty that solipsism is not true.

There is no metaphysical issue, solipsism can't be metaphysically true, because if it was we would be stuck in an infinite regress of self reference.

I think not.
It is debt that drives globalization and intertwines foreign economies to the point where they become interdependent.
I don't mean public sector debt either, I am talking about all those derivatives in the private sector.

To slow down or stop globalization we would have to untangle the private sector debt mingling between nations economies.

I disagree.
I look at it like this.
Either there is some standard of conduct which is expected of the students or there is not such a standard.
If there is such a standard and the students fail to meet it, then there should be some consequences.

This is about holding students accountable to standards of conduct, not sheltering women from unseemly realities.

Personal experience may be sufficient to convince you personally, however you cannot claim to know god exists if that knowledge can not be demonstrated to others.

What you actually have is a belief that god exists from personal experiences.

Knowledge would be results others could reproduce and confirm.

The many worlds interpretation exists to preserve determinism.
Many experts hope this interpretation is true because it can be mathematically modeled.

If the universe is truly non-deterministic then that could mean there will never be a theory of everything that describes all of the universe's forces and natural laws.

As far as I can tell you say that "not-self" would be incoherent if solipsism were true, and since "not-self" is coherent, solipsism must be untrue. — VagabondSpectre

Both the self and not-self would be incoherent if solipsism was true because of infinite self referencing.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Self-Recursion.html
You can't define these things using self as the only reference point.
If you do use only self and then try to reference the self, you create an infinite regress that never defines the term self, or any other term for that matter.
That is not what happens when we try to define ourselves.
At least not to me.
I can define myself and reach the conclusion that I exist without an infinite regress problem.
That should not be possible if solipsism is true.

I also do not understand why being uncertain that "not-self" exists means we must also be uncertain that "self" exists. — VagabondSpectre

Because the only logically coherent way to define self is as something which is distinct and independent from not self.

If you only use self reference to define self you don't get any clear definition of self or not-self.
You get an infinite loop of self reference with no conclusions.

I understand why something like "an orange" cannot be coherently defined unless we can say "not an orange", but in solipsism "self" is construed to represent the fundamental source of everything that exists. It becomes a matter of equivocation to argue that since we casually experience "not-self" solipsism results in incoherency because "self" under solipsism refers to the fundamental source of everything, not the way we interpret our casual experiences. — VagabondSpectre

It is a logic thing.
You can never define the self in the first place using only self reference.
The only way to clearly define self that is logically consistent and does not fall prey to infinite regress is by introducing the not-self as a thing which must exist independent and distinct from the self.

Perhaps I should amend my hard position though; the thing we are most certain of, aside from perhaps our own existence (cogito ergo sum), is our overall prevailing lack of certainty. — VagabondSpectre

You did not have a hard position you have an inconsistent one.
If you claim you can be certain that the self exists this logically entails that we can be certain that the not-self exists independent and distinct from the self.

Other wise you run into the infinite regress problem in the link that stems from self reference.
If all you have is self referenece as your foundational starting point you can arrive at no logical conclusions what so ever.
That means you would not be sure the not-self exists, and you could not be sure that the self exists either.
There would be an infinite amount of steps trying to reach any conclusion.
That is not what happens in reality, so we can be quite sure the solipsism is false.

In reality we are not trapped in an infinite loop of self reference, in reality we can reach logical conclusions.
This is mutually exclusive of the possibility of solipsism being the true reality.

Its really quite simple.

P.S, I'm somewhat less than enamored with solipsism as a hypothesis of any merit or utility than you might think, however since I cannot deliver a proof that it solipsism is certainly not the case, I admit that I cannot fully defeat it. — VagabondSpectre

This is where you are wrong.
The proof that solipsism is not the case is the fact that we are not trapped in an infinite regress and we can arrive at conclusions.
This is only possible if solipsism is not true.

What if the things which I perceive of as "not-self" are actually just works of fiction from my subconscious with no actual continuous existence beyond me imagining myself interacting with them or my subconscious mind temporarily simulating them in my conscious experience? — VagabondSpectre

Assuming that the reality was that there was no distinction from self and not self would leave you in an ill defined infinite regressing loop from which no conclusions could be drawn.
The process of defining self or not self would never end.

In this case it would still be coherent to say "not-self" and solipsism hold true. — VagabondSpectre

There is no logically consistent way to hold that solipsism is true.
If solipsism is true, in reality, then in reality we would not be certain of anything because we would be stuck in an infinite regress problem.

To say that "We can only be certain of the existence of self" is incorrect.
If we can be certain of self this is only true from a distinction of not-self which exist independent from that self.
If we cannot be certain of a distinct and independent not self, then nor will we have any certainty about self as a consequence.

From a logical standpoint the subjective world necessarily entails an objective world.

If we cannot be certain of one then by definition we cannot have certainty about the other.

A true solipsist would be an epistemological nihilist and assert that we could be sure of nothing at all.
And that statement itself would be something about which we could not be sure of.

This is why you cannot have any epistemological foundation with nihilism or solipsism.
The assertion "All things are uncertain" is itself an uncertain claim that regresses infinitely before it can ever reach a true or false conclusion.

It is all really quite simple and it boggles my mind that people are enamored with this non-dilemma.

If you are an epistemological nihilist/solipsist I say to you, well that position is not, and cannot be, logically grounded.
You have no and can have no foundation with which to support that assumption.

It is a non-starting point for philosophical inquiry.

I can't believe Trump won?!

And now there is a republican majority in the house and senate.

The one thing that will probably happen is they will do both supply side and Keynesian economics at the same time.

They will cut taxes and increase government spending, Trump is already talking about infrastructure stimulus.

I wish republicans understood that doing both stimulus and tax cuts is what, in reality, bloats deficits.
You would think this should be obvious and of some concern to them considering how much they complain when democrats fail to fix their mistakes quickly enough.

Pick one or the other, but tax cuts and stimulus is wrong economics.

The mind is, in my view, and I think his, irredeemably spooky, so a thorough-going objectivism can't admit its reality. — Wayfarer

I don't believe the distinction between the mind and the brain is necessary.

I have never seen any argument such that by force of logic we must conclude that the mind and brain are not terms indicating the exact same phenomena.

What creates someone who is considered a genius? I know for a fact you aren't born one. — Ozymandiaz

You have to be born with a high I.Q.

High I.Q. is an inhereted trait.

However that alone is not enough.

You must also obsess about the are in which you are a genius.
You must practice, slave, and toil constantly in learning everything there is to know about the subject and from that you seek to find a new and creative way to express yourself about that subject.

You might say it is something that can only exist 'in a mind' or 'in a brain'. But if you take the primitives of mathematics and geometry - natural numbers and geometrical forms and theorems - these are able to be discovered by any mind, so they're not in the mind, in the sense of being the product of brain-states. They are only perceptible by a mind, but they are not created by the mind; any mind that perceives that A=A, will be perceiving the same thing. — Wayfarer

An A is a symbol for a distinct object from anything which is Not A.
In order for A to equal A it must also be true that Not A is never equal to A.

This to me simply means that at some fundamental physical level distinct points in space are real.
I can not grasp the notion of forming such notions of distinct abstract identities, like A, were it not true in a physical reality that no such distinction could be drawn.

To my mind at a fundamental level it must be physically possible to draw distinction else it would not be possible to form such distinction in the abstract.
I can make no sense of the notion that the possibility for forming relationships between distinct objects is possible abstractly but is not also possible in a physically real sense.

H. sapiens has evolved to the point where such things as numbers and forms can be recognized by them, but they're not the creators of those things, nor can they be feasibly described in terms of neurology, in my view. That is simply the wish to provide an account for mental activities in terms that are explicable by neuroscience. It all goes back to one of the fundamental materialist dogmas, that 'the brain secretes thought'. I think, however, it can be shown that thought (in the sense of ideas, as defined above) are of a different order to the kinds of things that neurology can be expected to explain. — Wayfarer

I am a monist.
I believe it is most philosophically efficient to define reality as a single form, not separate things as with dualism or pluralism.

To me it boils down to semantic preferences.

I just think it is more philosophically tidy to define reality such that abstractions of the mind are not immaterial things.

In my mind all abstracts are made possible from possibility which is physically real.
That is to say a given set of relationships or distinctions can be drawn because such things occur in reality.
If distinctions and relationships among distinctions where not a physical possibility it makes no sense to me to say they exist exclusively in the abstract.
To my mind the abstract is founded upon the physical because if distinction and relationships could not physically occur I can make no sense of what it would mean for them to occur in the abstract.

In the end, that doesn't sound like sound reasoning does it? The proper use of scepticism surely is just to discover unexplored alternatives - gaps in our current explanatory beliefs - and not to simply disbelieve our beliefs. — apokrisis

Those arguing for the case of solipsism don't seem to realize that not only is such skepticism unnecessary.
It is logically impossible to even prove that it would be necessary if in reality solipsism was true.

Most of them argue that we can only be sure of the existence of self without realizing that to aviod infinite regress the terms self and not self must be defined such that they are distinct and independent.
If these terms are indistinct it creates an infinite loop of self reference which allows no conclusion about the existence of self or anything.

I have been trying in vain to explain this but people don't realize that they are being inconsistent and contradictory.

1. “There’s no getting outside my own mental creations”. — Dominic Osborn

If you only had access to self this would lead to an ill defined infinite regress such that you could be sure of nothing.
Not the existence of your self and not the existence of anything which is not self.

If you are sure of the existence of self the only logical way of achieving that is by reference to some not self which is distinct and independent of self.

If you are sure of existence self, this logically entails the existence a distinct and independent not self.

Not only is it unnecessary to doubt that existence of self and therefor not self,
It is logically impossible to demonstrate that it is necessary to doubt the existence of self and not self, because of infinite regress.

Solipsism cannot, with logical consistently claim..
"We can only be sure of the self and nothing else."
In reality being sure of the existence of self logically entails the existence of a distinct and independent not self.

In reality if such a distinction were not possible we would be stuck in an infinite loop of self referencing self referencing self.
We are not stuck in such a loop, we do have a clear and distinct impression of the existence of self therefor we can conclude that in reality solopsism is not the case...and cannot logically be the case.

Solipsism is not only unnecessary doubt, it is logically impossible to prove that it would be a necessary doubt.

Those that claim to be sure that the self exists are not solipsists, as this logically entails the existence of an independent and distinct not self.

Only those that claim...
"We can be sure of nothing including the existence of self."
Are consistent.
But because we can not be sure if they are right, or rather if we are sure they are right then we are not sure they are right.

Claiming we cannot be sure of anything at all is not a claim we can be sure of, and it is not logically possible to prove it correct because it would be self refuting.

So it is not possible that ideas and brain-states are the same. — Wayfarer

Even if we decide that ideas and brain states are not the same thing.
Without brain states ideas are not possible.

In my mind, (heh),The problem of an ill defined infinite regress inherent in solipsism makes it more difficult for us to make sense of things or to be certain of them, but the dilemma of solipsism is not that it has much (if any) merit as a hypothetical model, it's rather that many of it's variations cannot be fully falsified or discounted as a possibility. When it comes to "things of which we are certain", I do not count the statement "solipsism is not true" to be among them. — VagabondSpectre

That we can draw distinction from self and not self falsifies solipsism.
If solipsism was true we would not be able to form such a distinction because of the infinite regress problem.

Consider the brain in a vat scenario. A powerful scientist could be feeding impulses from a simulation into your brain in exactly the same way as if your brain was in a skull, rendering you unable to determine if the world you perceive actually extends beyond your potentially simulated or deceptive perceptions. — VagabondSpectre

The brain in the vat is not useful to your point as it takes for granted that an objective world does exist.
Again if objective information did not exist (that which is not self) then you would have no way to define self (form subjective perceptions).

This isn't exactly full blown solipsism, but it establishes a primitive case which can cast some (albeit minimal) doubt on whether or not our perceptions even indirectly reflect an external or objective world. — VagabondSpectre

Again it is rather simple.
In order to form any notion of self there must exist a not self distinct and independent from that self.
If in reality there were no such distinction then you would lapse into an ill defined infinite regress of self referencing self ad infinitum.

That this is not the case is proof that solipsism is not the case.

Solipsism is not really a profound philosophical dilemma, but it is a proper hard dilemma none the less. Whether or not I (you) live in a solipsistic world in the end would change nothing of consequence as far as our perceptions are concerned, so I (you) don't have any reason to waste much time trying to validate or falsify it. — VagabondSpectre

My point was that it is not a hard dilemma at all.
It is rather simple.
The debate is a semantic one.

Those that argue doubt of the existence of not self as distinct and independent are merely arguing that we redefine terms to entertain a philosophical dilemma where one does not exist.
That is to say there is no force of logic that it is necessary to redefine the terms self and not self such that these terms are not distinct and independent.
In fact it is not logically possible to construct such an argument because of infinite regress.

It is quite literally logically impossible to actually doubt the existence of the objective world (not self) without also doubting the existence of the subjective (self).

If the not self does not exist then it is logically impossible to define the self because of infinite regress.
If you assert that the subjective (self) does exist, the only logically founded way to reach this conclusion is by referencing the objective world (not self).
Exclusive access to only self reference does not allow one to draw a conclusion of the existence of self it leads to infinite regress and from ill defined terms.

So I balk notion that all one can be sure of is only the self (subjective perception).
This can only be true if are also sure of the not self (objective information).

There is no logical way to be sure of the existence of self otherwise?!?
:s

Those that are sure of self, subjective perception, or what ever you want to call it, are not solipsists.
This is why the position is incoherent.

The position asks that all you can be sure of as existing is the subjective (self) even while in order for that to be true it logically entails the existence of the objective (not self) as distinct and independent.

The position claims that we are ONLY sure of the existence of the subjective however, which is inconsistent logically.

In fact, from a foundation of logic, the opposite is the case.
We can only be sure of self if there is a definite distinct and independent not self.

I will grant that we may be subjectively wrong about what is the true state of objective existence, but what we cannot do is doubt that the objective exists in fact without also doubting that the subjective exists in fact.

You, perhaps hint at a true solipsist position.
If you claim we cannot be sure of the existence of the objective, then this logically entails that we are also not sure of the existence of the subjective.
These terms would be ill defined that there would be no distinction drawn between them.
That would be a consistent position at least, however you would nave no certainty about anything, subjective, objective or otherwise.

My response to this point is not only is that an unnecessary skeptical position, it is in fact logically impossible to prove that it is necessary.

Skepticism of about the existence of the objective is possible sure (granting that an infinite regress can be an actual occurance in reality) but just because it is possible does not make it necessary.

Again if it were not possible in reality to draw the distinction of not self and self then we would be stuck in an ill defined infinite regress in reality.
That is not the case at all, even those that argue the case for solipsism are claiming we can be sure of the existence of self, they simply fail to realize that this also logically entails the existence of some not self which is distinct and independent.

I did explain with an example.

I told you that gravity cause spacetime to curve.

To summarize my intention in this thread, I sought to provide a useful alternative to objective certainly after having contested that we do not currently possess very much objective certainty, if any. — VagabondSpectre

I disagree.
We can be certain that solipsism is not the case.
Solipsism leads to an ill defined infinite regress that would not allow you to form any conclusions about the existence of anything (including yourself).
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Self-Recursion.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

That is to say that if the term self is not distinct and mutually exclusive of the term not self, then there is no conclusion that you can draw what so ever.
This meany by definition the terms self and not self are independent of one another.

People don't seem to understand that we would not be able to make any sense out of anything if solipsism was true.
This is just a consequence of logic.
If you could only reference/access yourself (solipsism) then you would be stuck in an infinite loop of trying to define self by referring to self, by referring to self, by referring to self...ad infinitum.
But if a not self exists (objective reality), you can break the infinite cycle by reference self as that which is distinct from not self.

What I see people argue is this...
"The only thing we experience is our perceptions, therefor basis of our reality of is our perception."

That is fine if that is how you want to define terms but it is essentially a bare assertion about semantics and not an argument that demonstrates a point.

I say we have access to our subjective information which is nothing but objective information that has been processed by our brains.

I realize that this is not particularly interesting to think about, but the debate is really about semantics and is not that interesting in the first place.
I truly don't understand how people believe there is some profound philosophical dilemma here?!?
:-|

I agree with this entirely.
Qualia is just a fancy word for abstraction.

If a person has no opportunity to improve their lives then this would be an injustice.
Very often that is not the case with the suicidal, at least in developing or developed countries.

Often the suicidal have irrational standards of themselves and or others.
Especially if they believe that they themselves and/or others should not ever encounter any suffering at all.
Due to the nature of life that is simply not possible.

Suffering is a necessary part of life.
Without it we could never learn or grow.

Suicide is very often based upon irrational beliefs and expectations (I know this from experience as I have actually attempted suicide).
For me the key is to be grateful for the good things in my life, to realize that suicide is not a solution to temporary problems, and of course I take my meds which help stabilize my mood.

But to the point of the OP, life is worth living if there is opportunity to improve upon life.

Time, as you point out, cannot have a speed/rate.
Therefore, time cannot be a dynamic process. — hypericin

Not having speed is not the logical equivalent to is not dynamic.

Perhaps the entirety of time exists all at once, no one moment is more privileged than the next. What we perceive as a dynamic 3-dimensional system is really a static 4-dimensional one. The extra dimension gives "room" to project a 4-d static reality as a dynamic 3-d abstraction, just as the different chemical properties of different wavelengths of light allow for their projection as colors. — hypericin

In modern physics time is not a separate dimension.
All spatial and temporal dimensions are considered one continuum

In general relativity spacetime must be dynamic otherwise gravity would not cause it to curve.
For this reason I disagree with you that time is not dynamic.

What you describe sounds similar to .block universe theory of time also called eternalism.
This was also Einsteins view of time.

It is not clear whether etermalism or presentism is the case with regards to time.
I personally suspect that it is probably a bit of both that is the case.

At any rate time is not an illusion as it is defined by physics, it is a real measurable effect upon systems in experiments.

The meaning of life, the universe, and everything...is 42.

[DISCLAIMER]
Some restrictions may apply.
Void where prohibited.
Results may vary.

Life is not filled with continued suffering.
A great deal of my life is a rather enjoyable experience and this is true of many people.

I can understand how, if one focuses exclusively upon suffering, it would be difficult to comprehend the motives of those that wish to remain alive.

But it is simply not true that all lifes is constant unbearable suffering.
All the suffering I have encountered in my life is made bearable by the fact that there is also opportunity to improve upon my experience.
If I believed that there was no such opportunity perhaps I would be inclined to give up, but that is not the case.

You might argue that it is not possible to improve all experience such that there is no suffering and therefor there is no point in living.
But I disagree that because suffering can not be completely eliminated that therefore life is not worth improving.

How can you really define the distinction between objective and subjective if we only ever are subjective. — intrapersona

By definition the term objective includes all subjective perceptions.
The only need for distinction is between a subjective belief and an objective truth.
Things can be objectively true irrespective of subjective beliefs.
That is to say the truth of objective states is not contingent upon any particular subjective belief about that state.

The objective world remains only ever an inference at best. — intrapersona

By definition the objective world is a brute fact.
There is no coherent way to logically found claims upon solipsism.

If light did not have different wave lengths then color perception would not be possible.

What's the difference between a philosophical belief and a scientific belief? — Martian From Venus

Science is a method within a theory of knowledge.
Science relies upon empirical evidence and/or logic to support claims of knowledge.

Essentially belief is irrelevant to science, it is about what evidence you can demonstrate and whether or not the logic you use is valid.