I read through the quotes from my previous posts you provided. I don't see anything inconsistent. Also, I'm enjoying this conversation and am satisfied where it is going. — T Clark

Blind and inconsistent? Sorry, I can't perform miracles.

I think this is usually called consensus, not objectivity. :chin: Objectivity, at least in its most absolute sense, is unchallengeably correct. A consensus is an opinion accepted by most/all; it need not be correct. — Pattern-chaser

No. Equating consensus with objectivity would be overlooking the existence of mass-delusions, which need to be explained.

For instance, most people believe in a creator, but there is no logic, or objectivity in believing what most people believe. You have to account for those that don't believe, and the fact that there are many conflicting descriptions of a creator, and the fact that a creator has not made it's existence known, etc. In other words, you have to come up with an explanation that entails all of these factors and can explain why some people believe in such things and why some don't.

What you seem to be saying here is that when we succeed in converting the subjective into the objective - and good luck with that! :wink: - we will "be at a more objective outlook". Well yes, but why would we even consider such a thing? Subject and object are complements, not enemies. Subjectivity is not less than (or greater than) objectivity; it's a different and complementary perspective. — Pattern-chaser

Subjectivity is always less than objectivity because subjectivity can be seen as parts of objectivity. It's like having only one piece of the puzzle.

P1. I like orange juice.
P2. I drink what I like if it is available.
P3. Orange juice is available.
C. I drink orange juice.

Is this not a logical argument? Is it not also a subjective one? — unenlightened

How is it subjective? Every statement looks objective to me. Is it not objectively true that you like orange juice, or does it depend on who you ask?

I'll think about that, thanks. — Posty McPostface

And while you're thinking about that, you can think about it in reverse as well. Think of each grain of sand representing objectivity instead of subjectivity. The more sand, the more objectivity, until you fill the uni/multi-verse with sand, at which point you have achieved true objectivity. This represents how difficult to near-impossible it is to be attain true objectivity.

Heaps come in degrees. Objectivity comes in degrees.

I don't quite see your point here. Care to expand? Genuinely interested. — Posty McPostface

Two different heaps have a different amount of grains of sand. They both qualify as heaps, (subjectivity), but one has less subjectivity than the other (the smaller heap). Once you remove all grains of sand (all subjectivity) you have attained true objectivity, not just degrees of it by removing a bit of subjectivity at a time.

I rather agree, but for different reasons. It's not that I want to refute what you or any of the others are saying, rather I want to draw attention to the fact that people are talking about different things. Everyone is, like you, defending their own usage. What might count as objective knowledge can hardly be expected to fit the same criteria as an objective person, an objective view, an objective explanation and so on, though they may be related. — unenlightened

And that is why clarifying definitions are so important, unenlightened. :smirk:

Objective knowledge, explanations and views are only part of a person. If a person has all of these qualities, then they qualify as a objective person, but I already explained that that is impossible. The differences lie only in your subjective mind. As I said, fallacies are due to subjectivity.

I think you sort of deflated the issue with qualifying "objectivity" here with "degree of objectivity", yet I can't help as though feel that you've fallen into this objective-subjective trap too. — Posty McPostface

I also said that true objectivity is impossible, which is why it can only come in degrees of limiting subjectivity. The same goes for your "heap". There are degrees of "heaps". It seems to me that you are trapped and are content to stay that way.

Ideally, yes, assuming perfect knowledge, information, and exchange of thought. — Posty McPostface

Isn't that what I already said?

In my view, it is possible another minds that they do not use brains, such as the I.A. or an hypothetical alien civilization with a very different biology, but I cannot see the philosophical problem of a mind operating with other things that human neurons. — Belter

What is a mind for you to start declaring what has it and what doesn't?

What does it mean to "think", or to "have experiences"? What is "consciousness"?

It seems to me that problem lies in dualism itself - the idea that somehow the mind and body are so totally different that they cannot relate or interact. You seem to think that it is impossible for a particular set of active neurons represent some active part of the mind. Why? What argument do you have against it?

Seeing a bent stick in water is evidence that we see a model of the world based on the information we receive in light when it enters our eyes. We don't see bent straws in water. We see bent light passing through the water and glass.

In the same manner, when we look at other people and their brains, we see a model that is constructed with the information we receive from the light entering our eyes. Their body and their brain is a model for the underlying mental processes that they experience. Brains are mental models of other people's mental activity. You might say that the brain is the macroscopic expression of mental processes, which could be extremely small, or part of another process that we have yet to discover and explain.

Which does not equate to infallible, of course, but to trained indifference, which is of course just the way of being that Posty started with. It is the business of a doctor to 'be objective', or to take an objective view. — unenlightened

The infallible aspect of any explanation is it's subjective aspect. Objective explanations are infallible. That is their nature. Objective explanations reflect reality. Subjective explanations reflect the subject's values and skewed perspective of reality.

Damn, then there are no real doctors. Perhaps one can ameliorate the force of this a little, and say that an objective view is possible in at least some instances, though one can never be secure that one has taken the objective view in a particular instance. — unenlightened

I did say in the same thread that you are cherry-picking that we can attain a degree of objectivity through the scientific method. What is with the members on this sight that can't read a whole post and respond to the whole post - without cherry-picking? Your post was a waste of time, since I already addressed what it is that you believe you have a problem with.

I'm not sure about that. Many philosophers think otherwise; but, am not going to delve into that. Namely, in that through the analysis of the subject (self) relative to the object (the world), one can become more objective. Just a thought. — Posty McPostface

Delve into what - The topic of your thread? :brow:

I'm not disagreeing with your latter statement. In fact, I have already said as much. The only way to analyze the self is through and it's relationship with the world is through it's own subjective prism. We attain a degree of objectivity by integrating all knowledge from every source, including other people, into a consistent world-view.

When we are able to explain all subjective experiences, for everyone, not just for yourself, why they are useful and why they are different for each person, we would be at a more objective outlook.

I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists. — T Clark


How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science. — Harry Hindu


I don't think an objective way of seeing things exists. The problem is that science pretends to be one. — T Clark — Harry Hindu

I think my response to your comment answered that question. — T Clark

You response contradicts your earlier statement, which is why I asked for clarification.

Is that what objectivity means - experiences which are consistent with other experiences? If so, I would have no problem, but that's not how the term is generally used. — T Clark

Obviously you aren't consistent. Refer to the above exchange.

Do you mean this link?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/.
How is that different from any other list of fallacies? — T Clark

You said that BitterCrank's list was too long. I asked you to compare the link I provided with what BitterCrank provided. Aren't you paying attention, or are you more interested in being obtuse because the conversation isn't going where you like?

I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists. — T Clark

How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science. — Harry Hindu

I don't think an objective way of seeing things exists. The problem is that science pretends to be one. — T Clark

So you can't provide just one way of seeing things that is more objective than science.

Science doesn't pretend anything. You do science anytime you use reason to explain your experiences and error-check to ensure that they are consistent with the rest of your experiences.

Wikipedia has a list of LFs. I assume SE does also. I just threw Plato in. According to Wikipedia, Aristotle was the first to systematize fallacies, so I should have used him instead. — T Clark

Again, I provided another link. How about it?

For me, making sure my reasoning is sound is not accomplished by labeling an argument, it's by thinking it through and spelling out my thoughts. — T Clark

You seem to misunderstand the use of the logical fallacy terms. They are used to label the unsound reasoning in others' arguments, not your own. You simply try to avoid the unsound reasoning that those labels refer to. I already said pretty much the same in the rest of the post you replied to. You don't need others to label your unsound reasoning if you error-check your reasoning yourself.

I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists. — T Clark

How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science.

Most discussions where logical fallacies are referenced fall apart into arguments about 1) what that particular fallacy "really" means and 2) whether or not it applies to this situation.

Although it might not be true of you, most users of the concept and it's manifestations, at least here on the forum, don't understand them and misuse them. Case in point - ad hominem. — T Clark

The second sounds like the cause of the first.

Many of the "fallacies" on the list BitterCrank posted are confusing, silly, and/or wrong. — T Clark

What about the link I provided in the other post?

Although it might not be true of you, most people who make claims of logical fallacy out of laziness and unwillingness to put thought into their arguments. — T Clark

This isn't true for me. In my experience, it is those that commit logical fallacies that are being lazy. I have committed many of them myself - out of ignorance, frustration at being wrong, or just losing interest in the conversation. I just try to acknowledge it when I do it. I'm evolving.

Alternatively, they use such claims to give a gloss of sophistication to an unsound argument. — T Clark

Again, this points to your second point on your list.

Most uses of the term "logical fallacy" are guilty of the argument from authority fallacy. Why is that a fallacy? Because Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia, or Plato said so. — T Clark

Where does Wiki, SE, or Plato say this? Who is the original creator of the list of logical fallacies? It seems to me that you want to make sure for your own sake, that your reasoning is sound regardless of whether someone else says it is or isn't.

Rule of clarity - use jargon as little as possible. — T Clark

In a thesis or research paper - yes, but on an internet forum?

It sounds to me that you're just complaining about a bunch of novice philosophers using this forum. This is an opportunity to teach, not complain.

You said - "How did you learn what the word, "dog" means, if not establishing a connection between the string of symbols, "dog" and the image of a dog? I could show you the word, "dog", or a picture of a dog, and I would end up getting my message across all the same.". You were referring to the thing "dog", that's what you could show me a picture of. You could not show me a picture of the class 'dogs'. — Pseudonym

Exactly, the image of a dog that crops up in your mind is not a dog. It is your class for "dog". Dogs live out in the world as animals, not in your mind as images. The dog class exists only in minds, not out in the world. There's a clear distinction if you just think a little.

A picture of a dog is a concrete thing with an abstract meaning. The dog is abstract, the picture is concrete. Do you see the difference? The dog isn't a real dog, nor a representation of a real dog if I so intended. In that case it would be similar to the dog class. If I drew a picture of my pet dog, then that would be a concrete image, just as your experience of my pet dog would be if you were there to meet him, as opposed to your image of him before seeing a picture or meeting him.

You said "for any word to mean anything useful it must refer to something in the world.". I was asking what 'useful' meant in that context. So, by substitution - "for any word to mean anything (like the relationship between a tool and some goal) it must refer to something in the world" . Is this what you're claiming is necessary for a word to mean anything? — Pseudonym

Okay, I would rephrase my first sentence into, "to be useful, a word must refer to something in the world." What "useful" means in that context is the relationship between the word (the tool) and the intent to communicate non-verbal experiences (the goal).

I have no issue with this except that you'd said meaning was equated with information, which cannot be the case if the reader is imbuing the word with experience [information] that they already have? Surely the word must then be doing something other than imparting information in this case? — Pseudonym

I don't understand what you're saying here.

A writer or speaker has the intent to communicate their non-verbal experiences to others. The only way to do that would be to put it in a format that others can experience themselves - the written and spoken word. When a writer writes a word, or speaker speaks a word (the cause), the receivers experience seeing a visual scribble or hearing a sound (the effect). Their experience enables them to interpret those particular scribbles or sounds as references to other non-verbal things, events and processes, either imaginary or real (the context is usually implied in the words used, except when lying). What we try to do in interpreting anything we see or hear (effect) is we try to get at the cause, and in the case of word use, we try to get at the intent of the user of the words.

Exactly, but you'd said "It ultimately comes down to every word refers to some other visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, etc. sensation." I'm having trouble marrying the two concepts. Surely the word either refers one-to-one to some 'thing' in the world, or it means whatever we want it to. I don't see how it can do both. — Pseudonym

What I meant was that words can mean whatever we want them to mean, but if you want them to mean something useful, then they need to refer to non-verbal experiences and your intent to communicate a particular non-verbal experience. In the case of lying, your intent is to mislead others. In this case, you know how others will interpret the words you will use. Your intent is to create a mental image of what isn't the case, but in order to do that you have to have a mental image of what is the case. You then use words to help create that false image. In this sense your words refer to your intent to mislead. Words refer to the intent as well as their commonly used referent in that particular context. There are typically more than one cause to any effect. Effects carry information about all of their causes. Meaning is the relationship between some effect and it's subsequent causes.

An objective explanation is one that isn't dependent upon a particular perspective to be true. Subjective explanations are dependent upon a particular view.

Some people call an objective view the "view from nowhere". This means that the explanation is one in which there are no mentions, or implying of appearances. There is just an explanation of what that thing, or process, is or does.

On the other side of the coin, an objective explanation is an explanation that holds true no matter what perspective you have. This is why scientists test each others' theories, to see if they are applicable at all time, everywhere, for everyone. Objective explanations will be useful for everyone.

Subjective explanations are not useful for everyone. They do not apply in all cases. Objectivity is so difficult (if not impossible) to attain when you are a being in time and space and have your own sensory devices and a memory to store the information they receive. You have a view from somewhere, not from everywhere, which is why you rely on others to verify your interpretation of what you are experiencing. It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method.

The ambiguity keeps on cropping up. I would really like to know the reason why. — Posty McPostface

I thought I explained the reason why in the rest of my post. :brow:

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if anyone posted this link:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad inferences?

Would I be any closer to the correct apprehension of reality/truth? — Posty McPostface

Closer, yes, but not all the way. Being aware of a logical fallacy helps in ensuring you statement or explanation makes sense and is consistent. You still need to put all the relevant information into any logical system. There are times when we use logic and still fail because we simply didn't have access to all the relevant information at the moment.

There is only one true logical fallacy - the Logical Fallacy Fallacy. It is using the term "logical fallacy" without understanding the underlying basis. If you can't describe what the issue is with another person's argument without saying "XYZ Fallacy" then you have committed this fallacy.

If you disagree with another persons argument, you have to be able to express that disagreement in plain language without using labels or catch words. The term "logical fallacy" is just a lazy way of not having to think your position through. — T Clark

So you're saying that we shouldn't use the actual term for the logical fallacy, we should use the definition of the term when expressing disagreement? What's the difference other than taking the long route to explain your argument for someone who is too lazy too look up terms that they don't know?

You have it backwards. Logical fallacies are the result of lazy thinking.

I was using the term abstract in its philosophical sense with regards to language. This is, afterall, a philosophy forum and this is a thread about language, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/ gives a good account, or a more accessible definition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

You see the problem? We can't even agree what abstract means. — Pseudonym

From your own link:

The abstract/concrete distinction has a curious status in contemporary philosophy. It is widely agreed that the distinction is of fundamental importance. And yet there is no standard account of how it should be drawn. There is a great deal of agreement about how to classify certain paradigm cases. Thus it is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract (if they exist), whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete. Some clear cases of abstracta are classes, propositions, concepts, the letter ‘A’, and Dante’s Inferno. Some clear cases of concreta are stars, protons, electromagnetic fields, the chalk tokens of the letter ‘A’ written on a certain blackboard, and James Joyce’s copy of Dante’s Inferno. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Did I not explain that I used the term, "dog" as a class for all types of dogs?

I see the problem. You are lazy in your research and want to argue for the sake of arguing.

And what does "useful" mean? — Pseudonym

"Useful" refers to the relationship between a tool and some goal. Knowledge is a tool as much as a screwdriver. There are certain screwdrivers that are useful for certain tasks as well as certain knowledge that is useful for certain goals.

I'm not sure your definition tells us anything here. If meaning is the same thing as information, then what does Macbeth 'mean' when he says
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

Surely "shadow" in that verse means more than just the absence of light cast by an object. I don't see the cause and effect capturing the meaning there. — Pseudonym

Macbeth is a fictional character. Shakespeare's Macbeth bears little resemblance to the real 11th century Scottish king. "Macbeth" means what the author intended. Ambiguous language use one of the story-teller's favorite tools. The artist may have simply intended for their work to be open to subjective interpretation (which is basically the definition of art).

Shakespeare could have intended (meant) something specific when he wrote that, but did he leave any indication of what that was? If not, then (like the Bible) it is open to interpretation by others, which basically means that people will relate what they think Shakespeare intended with their own experiences. This is what we try to do when we try to understand what something means. We try to get at the cause, or the intent, and if we can't then we come up with our own explanation based upon our own experiences.

But this can't be the case otherwise mistakes in language would not be possible. If I write the word "Dog" but by it mean to refer to the King of France, 'dog' does not now mean the King of France, I've clearly made a mistake. Or, if everything does mean what the authors intend, then how are we to ever determine the meaning of any words at all? — Pseudonym

So artists are making mistakes with language? I thought that they were being "artful". Is that not what you would be doing in your language use? Sure, "dog" typically refers to an kind of animal, but it also refers to most men, if you ask any woman. Words can mean whatever we want them to mean. If we intend to get our message across, then we try to use words that we believe the listener understands.

You've just replaced value with important. What does important mean in this context?

I have no doubt that we could come up with synonyms all day, but at no point does claiming one word is equivalent to some others actually dictate what the word means. — Pseudonym

How else are we suppose to communicate the sensations and experiences (that are made up of visual, audio, gustatory, olfactory and tactile representations) that aren't words? How else do you communicate the actual color red, a sour taste, the feeling of anxiety, etc. that you experience? The color red isn't a word. "Red" refers to that color experience you have and you use that string of symbols to refer to that experience for the purpose of communicating it. I could draw examples of these terms, but that would be time-consuming.

Nothing in reality is trivial. The phenomena we discover is all special and not banal and with weird properties. But I don't see consciousness being explained using the same framework we use from the natural sciences. — Andrew4Handel

I was being objective in saying that consciousness isn't any more important than any other natural process. Of course a conscious being would think that their consciousness is special, but that in itself is subjective and isn't conductive to scientific research. The sciences attempt to establish a view from everywhere (objective) that can apply the same explanation to all conscious beings and explain why they all are conscious and why it is useful to have it.

I think subjectivity is one the most defining, special aspects of mind. It is easy to imagine that we all experience a tree in a similar way but we have immediate access to our private mental states and bodily sensations in a way unlike the public access to trees and their cells and biochemistry etc. — Andrew4Handel

Do we really have different access to a tree than we do with each others minds? Your mental states and bodily sensations are indirectly accessed by observing your behaviors. When we look at a tree, we only see the outer layer and it's behavior. What we are able to see is only what light can reflect off of, which is why we can't see atoms. Light doesn't reflect off of conscious experiences. Conscious experiences are a partially produced from the information we receive via light entering our eyes.

Subjectivity isn't special. You thinking it is isn't productive to getting at what it is. You are making a value judgement, not an explanation that would be useful to everyone who has subjective experiences. Subjectivity is simply a unique array of sensory information. We each have our own unique array of sensory information and memories that are used to interpret it. It really isn't that difficult to explain when you step out of your subjective value judgements and look at things more objectively. Your view is reflective of how humans have looked at consciousness since we've started trying to explain it. It is time for a paradigm shift.

I think expanding physics or exploring the role of the observer in physics and observer relativity is probably more useful than trying to exorcise consciousness or subjectivity from science. — Andrew4Handel

You mean like QM?

Like Descartes I believe we can be more certain of our conscious existence then anything. So that when I have been deeply unconscious everything ceases to exist for me and becomes somewhat irrelevant. So consciousness is not like a weak irrelevant epiphenomenon and something to tap onto to the end of an exhaustive physicalist framework imo. — Andrew4Handel

I never said it was irrelevant. I said it wasn't special. There is a difference. Consciousness needs to be explained. It just needs to be explained objectively - without making any value judgements (which are only useful for yourself). It needs an explanation that gets at what consciousness is and how it related to the world, why it is useful to have it, and how each person has their own version (subjectivity).

My entire comment referred to abstract terms. "dog" is not an abstract term. Can you point to 'value' or 'meaning'? — Pseudonym

"Dog" is abstract. I doubt you and I were thinking of the same kind of dog when I used the term. "Dog" is a term used to refer to ALL breeds of dog, not necessarily a specific one.

If you want me to point to "value" and "meaning", I can do that as well, for any word to mean anything useful it must refer to something in the world.

"Meaning" is the same thing as information and I defined information as the relationship between cause and effect. So when using the term, "meaning", you are referring to some causal relationship. The words on this screen mean what the authors intended when they wrote them. The meaning of seeing words on the screen (the effect) is some author's intent (the cause).

"Value" is how organisms behave in ways that show that something is important to them. Creating passwords, backing up digital pictures, saving money, are all behaviors that can be referred to when using the term, "value". It is what we mean when we say that someone values something. "Value" in this sense is a verb. It can also be a noun. The fact that we refer to words as, nouns, verbs and adjectives indicates that words refer to places, people and things, actions, and descriptors of nouns - meaning that all words refer to non-verbal experiences.

It seems strange to say that brains contain our minds. When I look at another person having brain surgery, their brain is actually in my mind - as a representation of their mind. Brains are just models of other's mental processes, just as the sun is a representation of the fusion process. There are no objects, like brains and stars. There are only processes and our minds model processes as objects in order to categorize them.

Mind and matter are of the same "substance" because they interact. What is presumptuous is to label the primary "substance" as either mental or physical. It is neither. Mental and physical are simply different kinds of processes, which is why they are modeled differently, and appear different. We model our own mental process as consciousness, and other mental processes as brains, or neural activity.

When abstract terms (words) need defining, then we can only use other abstract words (terms) to do that job. At no point can we simply indicate some existant thing as the referent object. So, why do these other words not need defining? — Pseudonym

Nonsense. How did you learn what the word, "dog" means, if not establishing a connection between the string of symbols, "dog" and the image of a dog? I could show you the word, "dog", or a picture of a dog, and I would end up getting my message across all the same.

Like I have said, words refer to things, which can include other symbols, but not necessarily so. It ultimately comes down to every word refers to some other visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, etc. sensation. Words themselves are visuals and auditory sensations that we use to refer to all the other non-verbal sensations and experiences we have.

No, others enable you to understand that you are a separate individual and at the same time Others effectively structure who you are, which you willingly accept because it reinforces their recognition of you as an individual. — Cavacava

Our desire is a desire for recognition, which is also the desire for what we believe the other desires, which is why we are always asking what others desire or lack. Our beliefs can be mistaken, but the structuring process remains the same. — Cavacava

It looks to me that you can't talk about the we without using terms like, "I" and "you", and "others". Define others without making reference to something other than yourself - yourself being you - the thing that exists prior to being labeled by others for their own ends, which you possess your own ends and that is why conflicts and moral dilemmas arise, because our individual goals come into conflict.

I'm not always asking what others desire. That is the sign of someone who has no self-worth. You describe the symptoms of someone who has no self-esteem - who looks to others to define them. Transgenderism arises as the result of allowing others to define you as something that you are not. Transgenders are typically from homes where the parents raised them and treated them as the opposite sex, so that later in life they are confused about what they really are.

Like I said, your existence is a priori to the labels people put on you. Definitions and labels are for categorizing and communicating, not for creating something from nothing.

It seems that logic is in the human mind and they create structures in computers that behave based on the operation a human wants to achieve. The program has designed constraints to guide its capacities and to act in precise or algorithmic ways

I wouldn't make an analogy between humans and computers because the immense amount of design that goes into computers. If there is no design in making humans then we can't safely take for granted any of the aspects of human inventions that utilise this — Andrew4Handel

Sure. Computers don't have goals of self-preservation and procreation, like we do. If they acted for themselves, and were designed and programmed to use the information that they contained, or had access to via sensory devices, for their own benefit, then we could start talking about a more concrete analogy.

Humans were "designed" and "programmed" as well, via natural selection. Evolutionary biology explains how our bodies were designed over an enormous period of time with an immense amount of design. Evolutionary Psychology explains how we have been programmed over a long period of time. We also have the ability to (re)program ourselves with our ability to learn (our non-instinctive behaviors) so that we can adapt quickly to rapidly changing environmental conditions.

There may be causal reason for behaviours and belief formation et al but I don't see how that explains the subjective perspective. For example it is possible that You and I are having a near identical experience of a tree. I don't think we are differentiated simply by possibly having a different combination of input.

Nevertheless I am not very knowledgeable about the concept of information in physics but if everything carries information in a sense of causal interaction and properties then it seems arbitrary that some information should become conscious.
So for examples all organisms receive input from and interact with their environments. — Andrew4Handel

So it comes down to, "What is consciousness?"

We are differentiated in space and therefore can't have the exact same experience of the same tree. This slight differentiation is what gives us our uniqueness. This unique information about location is what gives each of us our individuality. I am not you because we both have different brains and support systems for those brains. I cannot will your body to move, and you cannot will mine. These are all things that we learn as an infant. We learn to control our own bodies, not others. We learn to manipulate others through indirect means, like using language, or using our own bodies.

Consciousness is probably nothing special. It is made of the same substance as everything else, or else how could it interact and cause changes in other things? I don't think that there is some impenetrable boundary between mind and body/world. It is our assumption that there is that is keeping us from really getting at what consciousness is.

Others are always there, that's an empirical fact, not some sort of logical regress argument. It is only by means of interactions with those closest to you that you can become you, that your desire for recognition can be realized. And, yes we begin to become self aware around the time of language acquisition, the mirror stage of development starts at around 24 months (the terrible 2s) goes on until around age 5.

The 'I' is derivative of the 'We'. — Cavacava

What comes first the definition, or the thing being defined? It seems to me that what is being defined is what a definition represents. Definitions are simply representations used for categorizing and communicating states-of-affairs that exist(ed) a priori.

To say that "others" define me without recognizing that I am also an "other", isn't very well thought out.

What does it mean to "not live up to others expectations" if I am completely defined by others? Shouldn't I always live up to others expectations if others define me? If others define me, then it seems that there would end up being conflicting, even contradictory, definitions of me.

For example if you cannot read Chinese the symbols mean nothing to you and don't convey any information. I don't think reproducing is the same as information so that if a gene preserves the pattern of biochemical activity that produces body parts it is just a mechanical procedure. But our kind of knowledge is mental representation. — Andrew4Handel

I define information as the relationship between cause and effect. Even if you didn't know what the symbols mean (their abstract meaning, or the author's intent), the fact that there are written symbols (the effect) is indicative of the cause, (someone wrote them). In seeing written symbols, I can conclude the cause of the symbols based on my experiences - people write symbols. So the Chinese symbols carry more than just their abstract meaning, or information. They also convey concrete information.

Information is everywhere causes leave effects. Just because you aren't aware of it, doesn't mean that information isn't there. We also filter information based on the present goal in mind.

When you say "information presented" who is the information presented to? Also I don't think we know where we are in space apart from relative to what is around us and things are relative to where we are conscious of being.
So for example we are assuming we are all humans on earth but we are not imagining being another organism light years away with different senses and cognitive abilities.

So even the general human perspective is not objective in the sense we are based in from just one location in the universe with a particular array of cognitive and perceptual apparatus molding our intuitions. — Andrew4Handel

In a computer, information is processed and triggers certain behaviors not based on the physical interactions of the computer, but based on the logical interactions of the program. Different programs make the computer, which has the same hardware throughout each program that is run on it, behave differently. Just as you can behave differently based on the information you have in your head (working memory) at any given moment. You "physically" haven't changed, but the information inside you has, and accounts for your behavior. You can even behave differently than others given the same information because you have a unique history of experiences that allow you to interpret the information differently. In this sense, the information isn't really presented, but is the cause of our behavior as it is used by our body in order to achieve some goal.

So what is so magical about the words we'd use to define these terms that they themselves do not need defining? — Pseudonym

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. There is nothing magical about words at all. In fact, words are arbitrary symbols used to refer to states-of-affairs. It is these states-of-affairs, which are not words, or word use, but what words, and their use, refer to. We could use any symbol to refer to some state-of-affairs, just as we use symbol, "2" and "two" to refer to the same thing - a quantity of some thing. The symbols are meaningless if they don't refer to something. Words are representations and representations are things that are defined as being about other things. The fundamental nature of the world isn't words and how they are used. There is the world and it's various states, and our representations of it in order to communicate the various states to those that are not there to experience it directly for themselves. Words, because they are representations, are indirect means of experiencing the various states of the world.

If consciousness is just "in the brain" how do you come to be the subject of that brains experiences? — Andrew4Handel

The same way that any unique array of information is about some unique states-of-affairs. A subject emerges from the kind of, and how the, information is presented. Your information entails your location in space-time and your history - which is unique and relative to every one else's. Your unique array of information is what it is like to be you.

It seems to me that we only become who we are by way of others. — Cavacava

Then how did the others become aware of who they are? Am I not an "other" to others? Does not that make me the creator of others? Others are only one type of object in the world. Why would I need other people to become what I am, and not the simple recognition that I am not a tree, dog, or a rock based on my own observations of myself and other things? How would I interpret my own reflection without others around? Maybe you mean that we need language to become who we are - with a narrative?

Even if I were defined by others, I can interpret how others define me incorrectly, which means that I can't be completely defined by others. I have the "power" of misinterpretation that distinguishes me from others and their interpretations of me, which can also be wrong. Your explanation doesn't seem to account how others improperly define you, especially when they don't know YOU.

Thanks for the compliment, though if it was really excellent, I ought to have included what Srap Tasmaner pointed out here. — Tomseltje

Hmm. I thought those things were implied. For any discussion, participants need to agree on the definitions of the terms used. Philosophical discussions are different from other types of discussions in the terms that are used and how they are defined. Philosophy itself is about questioning what we take for granted, which could be the definitions we use.

Read my posts.

Excellent OP and thread, Tom. I have said pretty much the same thing many times on this forum. One of my first posts in any thread is asking for clarification of the definitions for the terms we are using. Many philosophical terms seem to be loaded with unnecessary assumptions that just complicates matters.

It seems that most philosophical problems are the result of posing improper questions, or no clear definitions of the terms that are being used. Many "philosophers" on this forum like to throw around terms with an ambiguous nature that makes them sound smart, but when you question their understanding of those terms, they get defensive - like unenlightened.

Making an observation that you don't know what you are talking about and that you keep reinforcing every time you post, is not an ad hominem attack.
I'm still waiting on your explanations.

The initial conditions at the big-bang determine, through the laws of physics, the universal wavefunction for all times.

And "all times" means the universe is a static block, the past and future exist.

An alternative formulation would be, the final state of the universe determines, through the laws of physics, the universal wavefunction for all times. And if you play determinism backwards, you get surprising spontaneous creation events. — tom

Play determinism backwards? Surprising spontaneous creation events? What are you talking about?

Don't make an ass of yourself. — tom

How about you answer the questions that show you know what you are talking about instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks?

You obviously do not understand the basic concepts of natural selection.

Please explain how extinction events happen without implying causation. Explain how physical traits arise and are propagated or filtered out of a gene pool without implying causation.

It definitely depends on how we define knowledge.

Do you know how to tie your shoes? How do you prove it? You tie your shoes.

Is knowledge something that we can possess without being aware of it? You weren't thinking about how to tie shoes just before I mentioned it, but now that I mentioned it, you become aware that you know how to tie shoes. You know you know because you've done it and you can do it now. Just untie your shoes and try it. Do you know how to do it? Did you know how to do it before I mentioned it - before you just now became presently aware of it?

It seems to me that knowledge can be something that we are not presently aware of at any given moment. We access it when we need it. We aren't aware of all we know at any given moment. Therefore knowledge must be something like storage, or memory that contains information that we consciously access when needed.

Where does mathematics and its objects figure in your view of things? Physical and causal? Non-causal, non-physical and pointless to ponder? — jkg20

I'm not sure what you are asking. What mathematical "objects"? Do you mean numbers? Do numbers cause you to do things? Sure they do. You behave differently when you add or subtract numbers and get values that apply to real life things. Is not the sum the effect of adding numbers together, and the difference the effect of subtracting numbers? This means that numbers are physical.

This betrays a very deep misunderstanding of what idealism is (in all its varieties).
Even Berkeley's pretty brute idealism insists on a distinction between thoughts and the objects of thoughts. Kantian transcendental idealism is even more insistent on the division. — jkg20

I think idealists are the ones that haven't thought things through. What are objects of thought and how are they related to thoughts? Any idealists want to answer that? What are thoughts without objects? What is the substance of thought if not sensory impressions?

The laws of physics don't seem to mention causality, anywhere. — tom

Science implies causality in its explanations. This reaction happens as a result of this combination of chemicals, while using these chemicals causes that reaction. Natural selection is a causal process of organisms evolving over time from previous ancestors, etc.

What is physical is what is causal. Anything that has a causal relationship (which would include God's relationship to the world, soul's interactions with the body, mind's interaction with the body, etc.) would be deemed physical. Everything else would be non-physical and therefore pointless to ponder.

Making a distinction between P and non-P as what is explained vs. what is not is anthropomorphic and subjective. At what point during the explaining process does something go from non-physical to physical? What if the explanation isn't complete or completely proven? What if aliens explained EM energy 1000s of years before humans did?