I have almost no idea what you were or are talking about. We don’t possess knowledge from an objective position - meaning like some omnipotent being - we possess knowledge as a subject of a world. The ‘world’ is the means of objectivity (aka intersubjectivity).

We’re talking right past each other here. — I like sushi

Perhaps we are. Perhaps one of us is.

Perhaps you'd gain a better idea of what I am taking about if you would pay closer attention to the words I'm using. You've been saying all this stuff about what we don't do that I've never said we did.

To be blunt, I reject the very dichotomy upon which much of your worldview and/or position hinges upon. I've offered ground for that rejection throughout this thread. They've been sorely neglected in lieu of all sorts of other stuff that I've not mentioned.

Does the fact that we're always working under assumptions entail that the coral does not have a true perimeter? I don't think it does. The error we make depends upon there being a true coral size as well as there being a fallible modelling process applied to it. — fdrake

Nice example, particularly given the ecological relevance of coral studies.

I would agree that the coral has some unknown definite length according to our own arbitrary increments, whatever they may be. I'm ignoring the constant change, of course. For practical purposes(tracking the increase/decrease in the size of coral reefs), we can get close enough to the actual coral size by virtue of the modeling techniques you've put forth for determining the average. The goal is to determine if coral reefs are in decline or not.

However, we cannot know what the actual(true as you've put it) size of the coral is at any given time as a result of it's constant change and the limits of our own measurement capability. That does not stop us from being able to know that there is an actual size. It also does not stop us from knowing whether or not our coral reefs are in decline.

Modeling thought and belief is not nearly as straightforward though.

I was feeling around (guessing) what you were talking about with the while ice cream business. Clearly I got what you were trying to convey wrong if what I posted made no sense and/or seemed irrelevant. — I like sushi

I offered actual examples that supported your claim, and actual examples that clearly did not. This gives us sound reason to conclude that that claim is inadequate, and was/is in need of additional qualification/quantification. Some. Not all.

If we hold that it is only the case that we can 'subjectively' know and yet not know how we know, then we are neglecting the situations where we not only know, but we also know how we know. Note also, that there was and is no need to invoke subjectivity here. It adds nothing but unnecessary confusion caused by an inadequate framework. Not to mention, the claim is false when taken at face value, as the examples to the contrary confirm.

I'm asking what you believe to be the case.
— creativesoul

As I explained, I don't think I 'believe' a single thing, I believe a range of different (possibly even contradictory things) in different contexts. So I simply can't answer your question. — Isaac

You claimed that you do not believe other people exist. You're now speaking about believing a range of things in different contexts, and not believing a single thing...

Are you familiar with the notion of performative contradictions?

:brow:

What I'm arguing for here is model dependent realism. Not that nothing really exists, not any form of idealism, just that the only way we know reality is through our models of it and so (this is, for me, the important bit) no model can ever be shown to be more 'true' (where that means corresponds to reality) than any other, and no objects distinguished by those models really exist in preference to any other conceivable way of determining objects. — Isaac

I'm puzzled here as well. You're claiming that no model can ever be shown to be true more-so than another competing/contradictory model...

Again, that's quite an odd claim.

Do you believe that we can be mistaken about that which exists in it's entirety prior to common language use?

I'm trying to ground things like belief in the physical. — Isaac

Acquiring knowledge of belief includes knowing how it is formed and held, which in turn allows one to know that all belief requires the physical and the non physical, for it consists of both and is existentially dependent upon both.

What claim and/or assertion are you asking me to argue for?
— creativesoul

Implied (but I could be wrong). You're saying that you find it odd, but you're not saying that you'll cast out your old thinking and accept this new 'odd' way of looking at things. Yet you've not presented any justification for finding it 'odd', just the bare declaration. So what I get from that is that you find it odd, and that the mere fact that you find it odd is sufficient for you to reject the idea. So the assertion is that what I've said is not a good way of looking at things, yet the backing for this seems to be just that you find it odd. — Isaac

The assertion is that I find it odd. Whether or not it is a good way of looking at things has yet to have been determined. I'm not certain that I understand it enough to render such a judgment at this time. I do think that the notion of belief that you're working from is inadequate.

Of course, it's possible you're just declaring you find it odd as nothing more than a point of interest. In which case, noted, but do you have an opinion on how useful the idea might, odd or not? — Isaac

It could be used as a 'structural member' of a notion/conception/idea of mind that - quite simply - consists of a number of false conclusions, assuming consistency/coherency.

What I'm arguing for here is model dependent realism. Not that nothing really exists, not any form of idealism, just that the only way we know reality is through our models of it and so (this is, for me, the important bit) no model can ever be shown to be more 'true' (where that means corresponds to reality) than any other, and no objects distinguished by those models really exist in preference to any other conceivable way of determining objects.

I can't remember why we got talking about model dependent realism in a thread about the expression 'what it's like'. — Isaac

Perhaps because what it's like to experience X consists - in very large part - of the candidate/subject's own thought and belief about and/or during that experience.

What is it like to experience having a sense of fairness/justice?

:wink:

Of course, it seems to me that the answer to that question requires knowing what a sense of fairness/justice consists of.

We appear to be talking past each other probably due to a difference in terminology/view of the question of knowing ‘the-thing-in-itself’. We cannot know the thing in itself. This is the idea of ‘pure objectivity’ - for me not refutable completely, but clearly unknowable. This harks back to the differentiation made by Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason. The ‘noumenon’ is only true for us in a ‘negative’ sense, as a limitation. — I like sushi

That last comment does not make sense.

Earlier you denied/rejecting my comparison between Kant and phenomenology, instead opting for Husserl(???). Weird now to revert back to Kant. I've already briefly spoken about Kant's shortcomings. Some folk hereabouts think I've gotten him wrong. So, to avoid any and all disagreements about whether or not Kant meant and/or said what I reported him to have, I'll say this...

In order to be able to know what one is talking about when drawing and maintaining a distinction between the way things are and the way things appear to be one must have direct access to and knowledge of both.

As you note above, Kant posits the way things are(Noumena) as a negative limit to our thought. That is a purely(pun intended) self-imposed limitation borne of inadequate language use and/or linguistic framework.

The objective stance I am guarded against is naive realism. There is no ‘knowing’ ice cream only subjective experience, an ‘object’ of experience. I don’t see how ‘knowing’ can possess unbounded universality. What is known truly is only known within set limits - been through exhaustively elsewhere I believe.

You don’t know by way of someone else’s knowing. You know only through you - which is subjectivity. The further issue is understanding that ‘objective knowing’ is ‘intersubjectivity’: the interplay of subjects not some item know as ‘the-thing-in-itself’.

Two subjects owning the same existence/reality are not ‘two’, that is maybe another point that causes confusion in this kind of topic? — I like sushi

What confuses me, at this point, is how/why you think that that has anything at all to do with what I wrote about knowing???

As I've stated many many times in past, and no doubt here in this thread as well, I reject the objective/subjective dichotomy.

I find it odd when someone claims that they do not think other people exist.
— creativesoul

Yes, but incredulity does not constitue an argument. I'm asking you what your argument is, not what your feeling is about mine. — Isaac

I'm asking what you believe to be the case. What claim and/or assertion are you asking me to argue for?

Do you believe the following statement?

Other people exist.
— creativesoul

I don't hold single beliefs about the subject. As I've said already, for me, a belief is simply a disposition to act as if. It is therefore contextual. In the context of thinking about reality, in the widest sense I can, I'm disposed to act (in this case actions are all talking/typing) as if people do not exist, as separate objects. In the context of my day to day life, I'm disposed to act as if other people do exist.

Neither of these dispositions tells me anything about what actually does exist. — Isaac

I find all of that odd as well.

A rubber ball is disposed to bounce when dropped onto a hard surface. According to your definition, rubber balls have belief.

I find it odd when someone claims that they do not think other people exist.

Do you believe the following statement?

Other people exist.

I don't think other people exist... — Isaac

You said the above. I responded by asking what on earth could be wrong with saying "other people exist"?

If it is the case that you don't think other people exist, then there must be something wrong with you saying "other people exist".

What is it?

What on earth could be wrong with saying "other people exist"?
— creativesoul

Depends what you mean by 'wrong'. — Isaac

Not I sir...

I've no issue at all with saying that. Do you?

You ‘know’ subjectively yet you don’t know how you know. — I like sushi

Sometimes. Not all.

One can know that their holding an ice cream cone and not know how to say it. This would satisfy your criterion.

One can know that when her mother utters "ice cream" that they are about to eat ice cream. They cannot say anything about the correlations that they are drawing, but they can be shown to clearly have already drawn correlations between their own mother's naming and descriptive practices and ice cream. This would satisfy your criterion.

They get quite happy when they entertain having it again. When mother starts asking again in the same way she always does they draw correlations between the language use and eating ice cream. They know what it's like to believe that they are about to eat ice cream, but they do not know how they believe that. They draw correlations between the language use and ice cream. This would satisfy your criterion.

The use of the terms directly involves her mother speaking endearingly with a certain tone accompanied with a certain loving facial expression. She can know that she's about to get ice cream because she's drawn correlations between her mother's language use and eating ice cream, and yet not know how she knows that much. This too satisfies your criterion.

That's only to say that sometimes we know yet do not know how we know...

Sometimes we know X as well as knowing how we do.

We know how to use this site to interact. We also know how we know. We learned how to use the site by learning to follow the procedure needed in order to do so. We learned how to talk about that learning experience as well. We know and we know how we know.

This does not satisfy your criterion. Rather it offers an example to the contrary. Thus, at a minimum, we must further qualify your claim captured in the quote directly above. Hence, my reasoning for the opening statement.

...the scientific approach has no means of dealing with subjective phenomenon... — I like sushi

What's the difference between your notion of "subjective experience" and your thought and belief about what counts as such?

What on earth does "measuring subjectivity" have to do with knowing what it's like to experience X? — creativesoul

Experience is subjective. — I like sushi

Part of it is.

What on earth does "measuring subjectivity" have to do with knowing what it's like to experience X?

I don't think other people exist either. — Isaac

What on earth could be wrong with saying "other people exist"?

The experience itself is inaccessible, because you don't have someone else's pain. — Marchesk

I cannot have your pain. I can most certainly have my own. If we know what having pain consists of... then it doesn't make much sense to say that having pain is inaccessible, does it?

:worry:

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C?

I do not see what's so perplexing aside from it perplexes me to see people keep talking like that...

Why is it that when our ears engage in hearing the middle C being played that we hear the middle C being played?

What did I miss?

How can we explain why...

By taking account of our own thought and belief and it's effect/affects upon ourselves including our subsequent attitudes and behaviour.

It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises.

Granted.

Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

"Why ought" is not the right question at all.

Perhaps taking careful consideration of both the physical and the non physical aspects of all experience would be helpful?

I'm jealous. Threads about Banno's views...

:wink:

Goes to show that some folk know how to leave an impression!

Perhaps you're worrying too much about whether or not someone else understands you because you've not quite been able to come to acceptable terms in your own mind?

Usually people pretty much understand each others words... in everyday life. Here... on this forum... well that's another matter altogether.

So you would agree that people can use the notion of race without believing that it is a legitimate method of scientific classification.

All along race has been a certain social distinction, a category not of biology, but a social category about people who exist (who often have a skin colour, culture or ethnicity). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes.

So that wasn't quite my point. My point was that race wasn't biologcal, not that a category of race itself was a false belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ok.

I’d say both. It’s not really the case that the scientific history of the term ‘race’ hasn’t played a significant part in the development of racism. — I like sushi

Of course! The scientific history of the term is atrocious! A synonym for species nonetheless!

However...

A lack of belief that there are such things as races does not guarantee that one does not have racist elements within their worldview, just as a belief that there are races does not guarantee that one has racist elements within their worldview.

As it pertains directly to the OP subject matter...

Denying race may equate to some folk's idea of what it means to be color-blind, but it does not guarantee that such a person does not have racist elements within their worldview. One can claim color-blindness by refusing to talk about race. That will not correct the problems that need corrected. It could be used to willfully exonerate one from addressing the issues head-on so long as such a person garners enough agreement from enough people that all talk of race is to be avoided because it is believed that it will further perpetuate racial discrimination or some such.

Placing all talk about race on equally unethical ground is foolish at best, and heinous at worst.

Yes. I'm simply making a concerted attempt at setting out the underlying habits of mind, the kinds of thinking, that constitute racism and having a racist element within one's worldview.

Believing that there are different human races may be a false belief, but it does not make one racist in the sense of being racist that matters... the kind of worldview that needs to be corrected and/or shunned...

Devaluing asians based upon looks alone is racist, even though asian is not a race. This clearly proves that racism does not require a biological classification called "race".

How can you charge another with conflating race and ethnicity if there is no such thing as race?

I understand what you're getting at. However, my whole project here is to show that the belief in the biological taxonomy of "race" is irrelevant. People were racist before the term was invented.

It relevant because you’re assuming race when there is none. You say a belief in race is neither necessary nor sufficient then go on to say people are devalued because of their race.

How can one devalue someone because of their race while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists? — NOS4A2

The same way you can say that one is conflating race with ethnicity while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists.

Again, belief in distinct biological groups called "races" is irrelevant. Such a belief is neither necessary nor sufficient for devaluing another human based solely upon their being from a different race, having different skin color or ethnicity, etc.

I wouldn’t call someone a racist for distinguishing between ethnicities, though I would if they conflated the ethnicity with the biological races of those involved. — NOS4A2

So... what is a biological race such that one could conflate it with ethnicity and in doing so qualify for being racist?

:brow:

What does that amount to if there is no such thing as biological race?

So is the Asian race more Chinese or Indian? More Persian or Malay? More Iraqi or Indonesian? — NOS4A2

You tell me. I do not think that there is such a thing as an "Asian race". You're the one using the terms. You're the one who needs to answer.

What's a biological race such that it can be confused with ethnicity?

The point about racism towards asians is that that is a real thing despite the fact that there is no Asian race. Thus... your definition fails yet again.

That's a legitimate question. Valid. Relevant.

Answer?

Then what were you talking about when you referred to confusing biological race with ethnicity?

I would if they conflated the ethnicity with the biological races of those involved. — NOS4A2

What's a biological race such that it can be conflated with ethnicity?

It’s racist because it refuses to acknowledge the genetic diversity of Asia, and assumes all Asians look and act a certain way — NOS4A2

Well, no... That's being ignorant. Lots of racists(most) are ignorant, but not all people who are ignorant are racist. One can think that there are human races without being ignorant of the diversity within in each. One can devalue another based upon race without being ignorant.

Not all racists look and act and believe the same things. The common denominator is the devaluation of another based upon race, skin color, ethnicity, etc. The devaluation is the part that makes it racist.

My personal belief about biologically distinct groups(scientific classifications) is irrelevant to whether or not belief that there are human races counts as having a racist ideology or worldview.

That's what's in contention here. You claim it is, and I'm claiming it is not. At least one of us is wrong.

That does not matter. Belief in race does not make one racist. That's what I'm trying to get through to you. It's not even necessary.

If you have milk and eggs, does it follow that there's no way to avoid having scrambled eggs?