Objective/Subjective

[untermensche]

You can describe experiences of the brain.

You can't tell me what it does beyond saying it responds reflexively.

You think energy has information about color in it.

You think the isomerization of retinal can somehow transmit that information.

You are about as lost as one can be.

Energy has information about color r is nonsense, no one said that.

Maybe you never did but the person I was talking to thinks that energy transmits information about color to the nervous system and vibrating air transmits information about sound to the nervous system.

And they claim to have done research on the nervous system.

Bad assumptions make for bad conclusions.

What was said is that we classify wavelengths of lvisible light and assign arbitrary words like blue to specific wavelengths.

Some do that too. It is just as irrational.

The stimulus for the brain to create the experience for color is merely the stimulus.

If you classify it rationally you do not say the energy is blue you say the colorless invisible energy is the stimulus for the brain to create the experience of blue.

The energy is correlated to an experience. It not blue in any way.

The eye and brain discarnate between color regardless of what we call the light.

"discarnate" ? I'll assume you mean discriminate and are too rude to care how badly you are communicating.

Cells in the retina have mechanisms that respond to the isomerization of retinal. This is what cells have evolved mechanisms to react to. Not the energy that transformed the molecule.

When millions of retinal molecules are transformed from cis to trans the brain has mechanisms that reflexively turns that information into the many colors we experience.

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe you never did but the person I was talking to thinks that energy transmits information about color to the nervous system and vibrating air transmits information about sound to the nervous system.

And they claim to have done research on the nervous system.

Bad assumptions make for bad conclusions.

What was said is that we classify wavelengths of lvisible light and assign arbitrary words like blue to specific wavelengths.

Some do that too. It is just as irrational.

The stimulus for the brain to create the experience for color is merely the stimulus.

If you classify it rationally you do not say the energy is blue you say the colorless invisible energy is the stimulus for the brain to create the experience of blue.

The energy is correlated to an experience. It not blue in any way.

The eye and brain discarnate between color regardless of what we call the light.

"discarnate" ? I'll assume you mean discriminate and are too rude to care how badly you are communicating.

Cells in the retina have mechanisms that respond to the isomerization of retinal. This is what cells have evolved mechanisms to react to. Not the energy that transformed the molecule.

When millions of retinal molecules are transformed from cis to trans the brain has mechanisms that reflexively turns that information into the many colors we experience.

You misinterpret based on a lack of understanding of electromagnetics.

 

[untermensche]

You misinterpret based on a lack of understanding of electromagnetics.

Where does this nonsense come from?

Do you only post after getting real drunk?

How about you for once defend your claims with rational arguments?

 

[steve_bank]

You misinterpret based on a lack of understanding of electromagnetics.

Where does this nonsense come from?

Do you only post after getting real drunk?

How about you for once defend your claims with rational arguments?

My argument is simpe. To repeat...

Objective is observation and conclusion that can not change with human perception of how one thinks about the observation. The orbits of the plaets.

Subjective is believing a woman is in love with you based on personal feelings and intepretions of events, it may or may not be true.

From Popper that which can be reasonably called objective is a repeatable experiment, interpretations of experiment can subjective and xan become philosophy. The multi universe interpretation of quantum mechanics. What an expeiment meansd in a genral sense can be subjective.

What color 'means' is a subjective debate. What color is physically s a definition in System International units.

Objective - results not subject to personal interpretation. Wavelengths of light..
Subjective - open to personal interruption and how you look at it. Art.

Objective and subjective are themselves arbitrary categories. They are definitions. Sone may disagree where the boundary between the wto are.

In real life tere is subjective, objective and a grey area. Objective is aerodynamics used to design an airplane. That it works is not an assumption, it is a fact. Waht good music or art is, is subjective.

 

[untermensche]

My argument is simpe. To repeat...

Objective is observation and conclusion that can not change with human perception of how one thinks about the observation. The orbits of the plaets.

Conclusions are not objective. They are made by subjects. They are either rational and helpful or they are irrational an not helpful.

The assumption that the planets are out there and the models used to describe their movement are not objective. They are the product of subjects, experienced by subjects, and used by subjects.

When experiences (data) align with models we assume the models are at least close to describing what is happening.

For centuries people assumed the models of Newton were describing the universe. But along came Einstein and now it is his models and models derived from his assumptions that are thought of as describing the universe.

We now understand that while Newton's models work in many cases they are only approximations and don't fully describe the universe.

Although many of Newton's assumptions are still assumed to be accurate. Like: A body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon.

Subjective is believing a woman is in love with you based on personal feelings and intepretions of events, it may or may not be true.

Subjective is also assuming there is something out there that correlates with our experiences.

From Popper that which can be reasonably called objective is a repeatable experiment, interpretations of experiment can subjective and xan become philosophy.

In other words assumptions from experiences.

And I have said "objective" is a subset of subjective experience. It is a label assigned to a type of subjective experience.

It is not something removed from subjective experience since all we have are subjective experiences of the world.

The multi universe interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The multiverse is religion.

What color 'means' is a subjective debate.

All debates are subjective debates. They are debates between subjects.

What color is physically s a definition in System International units.

Color is an experience and nothing else. It has a correlation to energy. But energy is not color nor forcing or instructing the nervous system in some way to create the experience of color.

 

[DBT]

I never once said anything close to that.

Your lack of understanding is not an argument.

It appears that you have little or no understanding of the implications of your remarks on perception and experience in relation to the objective world.

That is the worthless opinion of a blind child.

I understand what I am saying.

You have no clue what I'm saying.

My ideas can't rise above the general ignorance of their tiny audience.

None the less they are true.

Minds experience their experiences. They do not experience the world. The world is an assumption based on experience.

You need to consider the possibility that what people are telling you may just be true. That you in fact may be wrong.

No shame in being wrong. But persistently failing to consider the possibility becomes ridiculous when the errors are being clearly described over and over to no evail.

You need to reevaluate your beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

You need to consider the possibility that what people are telling you may just be true. That you in fact may be wrong.

Of course. That is why I read and respond to everything people say as best I can.

I do not think you are capable of it though.

Which is why you ignore 90% of my questions and rely on things like this instead of rational arguments.

Do you have an actual point?

Can you respond to: We do not experience the world. We experience our experiences of the world.

Take your focus off me and look at the ideas.

 

[fromderinside]

You can describe experiences of the brain.

Energy has information about color r is nonsense, no one said that. What was said is that we classify wavelengths of invisible light and assign arbitrary words like blue to specific wavelengths.

I go a step beyond steve_bank. I said receptors react to specific frequencies of light which the brain systematically processes.

I said the processes in brain that accomplish this via not fully known, at present, processing modes. You use that incomplete information as leverage to construct a theory of subjective experiences which you can't detail or connect to other things the brain accomplishes.

I say you need to show how your 'subjective processes' of consciousness, self and experience make obvious how they accomplish learning how to drive a car. We learn using our brains. For your model to hold up you need show how experience, self, and consciousness facilitate brains accomplishment of learning effective car driving.

No constructive or determinative input from you on that point to date.

 

[untermensche]

You can describe experiences of the brain.

Energy has information about color r is nonsense, no one said that. What was said is that we classify wavelengths of invisible light and assign arbitrary words like blue to specific wavelengths.

I go a step beyond steve_bank. I said receptors react to specific frequencies of light which the brain systematically processes.

A molecule within the cell undergoes an isomerization when energy of a certain level enters the eye and runs into the molecule.

The cell has evolved mechanisms that respond to the movement of a nitrogen atom on the molecule.

A molecule undergoing an isomerization is not an evolved mechanism.

The nervous system has evolved mechanisms that reflexively create the visual experience based on the array of information about the movement of millions of nitrogen atoms.

The nervous system has no evolved mechanism that can understand why the isomerization takes place or what caused it.

To those who can understand this they know the claim that energy has information about color is unsupported in any way.

To think the nervous system is gleaning information about color from energy is to believe in miracles.

The experience of color is an evolved reaction to the movement of nitrogen atoms. The initial mechanism is known. It is only correlated to the energy. How the brain processes the information about the movement of nitrogen atoms and creates the visual experience from this information is not understood at all.

The phenomena of experience, which is the only connection humans have to the external world and is assumed to be correlated to things out in the external world is not understood at all.

No amount of hand waving can change this.

 

[DBT]

You need to consider the possibility that what people are telling you may just be true. That you in fact may be wrong.

Of course. That is why I read and respond to everything people say as best I can.

I do not think you are capable of it though.

Which is why you ignore 90% of my questions and rely on things like this instead of rational arguments.

Do you have an actual point?

Can you respond to: We do not experience the world. We experience our experiences of the world.

Take your focus off me and look at the ideas.

Your questions have been answered, explanations, research, analysis, etc, etc, given over and over and over. regardless of what is said, you ignore or dismiss everything in the pretense that nobody has 'answered your questions'.

You won't consider the possibility that you are wrong. In your eyes, everyone who disagrees with your beliefs is wrong, but you are right. Just like religion and faith.

 

[untermensche]

You need to consider the possibility that what people are telling you may just be true. That you in fact may be wrong.

Of course. That is why I read and respond to everything people say as best I can.

I do not think you are capable of it though.

Which is why you ignore 90% of my questions and rely on things like this instead of rational arguments.

Do you have an actual point?

Can you respond to: We do not experience the world. We experience our experiences of the world.

Take your focus off me and look at the ideas.

Your questions have been answered, explanations, research, analysis, etc, etc, given over and over and over. regardless of what is said, you ignore or dismiss everything in the pretense that nobody has 'answered your questions'.

You won't consider the possibility that you are wrong. In your eyes, everyone who disagrees with your beliefs is wrong, but you are right. Just like religion and faith.

[removed]
You have refused over and over to answer my questions.

Here, I'll demonstrate.

Answer this question:

Are the things you believe something forced upon you or have you freely chosen to believe them?

 

[steve_bank]

You can describe experiences of the brain.

Energy has information about color r is nonsense, no one said that. What was said is that we classify wavelengths of invisible light and assign arbitrary words like blue to specific wavelengths.

I go a step beyond steve_bank. I said receptors react to specific frequencies of light which the brain systematically processes.

I said the processes in brain that accomplish this via not fully known, at present, processing modes. You use that incomplete information as leverage to construct a theory of subjective experiences which you can't detail or connect to other things the brain accomplishes.

I say you need to show how your 'subjective processes' of consciousness, self and experience make obvious how they accomplish learning how to drive a car. We learn using our brains. For your model to hold up you need show how experience, self, and consciousness facilitate brains accomplishment of learning effective car driving.

No constructive or determinative input from you on that point to date.

You are stating the obvious. No matter how verbose it all comes down to brain and genetic programming. Learning is a genetic process. From a recent show when learning a new physical skill energy use is high in the area of the brain, construction if you will. Once accomplished and it becomes a learned skill energy in the area gores down. It becoms an unconscious skill when used.

Learning is another topic.

This has nothing to do with objective vs subjective. As I said the dichotomy is a definition and it is not provable. In such a case examples of the two are used to communicate meaning. I am not offering any theory. This is the realm of theory of knowledge under metaphysics.

Meaning of words while they have dictionary definitions derive meaning by use and general cultural consensus of meaning. There are no absolutes. Most have a sense of subjective vs objective, while people will disagree on specific situations.

I am sure you have been in professional situations when there was a dispute over objectivity on an issue. I certainly was.

Your request for a neural theory of subjective vs objective is analogues to a neural model for 'what is fact' vs 'what is opinion'. That would be above my paygrade.

We learn the re between fact and opinion along with subjective vs objective by experience and immersion in culture.

 

[DBT]

Your questions have been answered, explanations, research, analysis, etc, etc, given over and over and over. regardless of what is said, you ignore or dismiss everything in the pretense that nobody has 'answered your questions'.

You won't consider the possibility that you are wrong. In your eyes, everyone who disagrees with your beliefs is wrong, but you are right. Just like religion and faith.

[removed]
You have refused over and over to answer my questions.

Here, I'll demonstrate.

Answer this question:

Are the things you believe something forced upon you or have you freely chosen to believe them?

So you claim. Your claims have been shown to have no merit by several posters.

 

[fromderinside]

I go a step beyond steve_bank. I said receptors react to specific frequencies of light which the brain systematically processes.

.

From a recent show when learning a new physical skill energy use is high in the area of the brain, construction if you will. Once accomplished and it becomes a learned skill energy in the area gores down. It becomes an unconscious skill when used.

Since I didn't mean to address that post to you your comments are interesting but I don't think you hold the views I presumed in my post.

As to that high energy construct you pushed out I knew that when my first Tilapia swam briskly away from the manipulandum in the thank after the mealworm dropped into the tank as result of the fish nudging the manipulanda after three or four trials.

 

[DBT]

Your questions have been answered, explanations, research, analysis, etc, etc, given over and over and over. regardless of what is said, you ignore or dismiss everything in the pretense that nobody has 'answered your questions'.

You won't consider the possibility that you are wrong. In your eyes, everyone who disagrees with your beliefs is wrong, but you are right. Just like religion and faith.

You have never once shown me to be wrong about anything. You're a third rate fan boy of things you don't understand.

You have refused over and over to answer my questions.

Here, I'll demonstrate.

Answer this question:

Are the things you believe something forced upon you or have you freely chosen to believe them?

It's been explained that convictions are formed for several reasons,: the evidence supports a proposition, desires and fears drive faith in a God or gods, etc, etc....and that your use of 'forced to believe' is a Strawman.

Please stop using Strawman Arguments.

 

[WAB]

Your questions have been answered, explanations, research, analysis, etc, etc, given over and over and over. regardless of what is said, you ignore or dismiss everything in the pretense that nobody has 'answered your questions'.

You won't consider the possibility that you are wrong. In your eyes, everyone who disagrees with your beliefs is wrong, but you are right. Just like religion and faith.

[removed]
You have refused over and over to answer my questions.

Here, I'll demonstrate.

Answer this question:

Are the things you believe something forced upon you or have you freely chosen to believe them?

It's been explained that convictions are formed for several reasons,: the evidence supports a proposition, desires and fears drive faith in a God or gods, etc, etc....and that your use of 'forced to believe' is a Strawman.

Please stop using Strawman Arguments.

Fear - not all theists are "driven" by fear.
Desires - don't all individuals have desires? And, if determinism is true, then no one chooses their desires. They can choose to pursue what they desire, but they cannot "choose" their desires.

Hence, there is zero basis, on the materialist, determinist account, for holding individuals responsible for their actions, including horrible criminals, dictators, evil capitalist pig-dogs, or ethical scientists, or ethical individuals of ANY sort.

NOTE: this does NOT mean that I think individuals should NOT be incarcerated for being criminals, particularly the very dangerous ones. I DO think that incarceration is morally unethical for individuals who have not done harm to another person, or who are just harmful to themselves. Of course, this leads to questions about what constitutes harm - ain't goin' there right now. But will if I must.

 

[DBT]

It's been explained that convictions are formed for several reasons,: the evidence supports a proposition, desires and fears drive faith in a God or gods, etc, etc....and that your use of 'forced to believe' is a Strawman.

Please stop using Strawman Arguments.

Fear - not all theists are "driven" by fear.
Desires - don't all individuals have desires? And, if determinism is true, then no one chooses their desires. They can choose to pursue what they desire, but they cannot "choose" their desires.

Hence, there is zero basis, on the materialist, determinist account, for holding individuals responsible for their actions, including horrible criminals, dictators, evil capitalist pig-dogs, or ethical scientists, or ethical individuals of ANY sort.

NOTE: this does NOT mean that I think individuals should NOT be incarcerated for being criminals, particularly the very dangerous ones. I DO think that incarceration is morally unethical for individuals who have not done harm to another person, or who are just harmful to themselves. Of course, this leads to questions about what constitutes harm - ain't goin' there right now. But will if I must.

I didn't mean to suggest that all theists are driven by fear. Some may not be, but nevertheless an underlying fear of death, disease, loss, sorrow, pain and so on are factors. The promise eternal life in paradise, reunion with loved ones, etc, attract some to find solace in faith. Conditioning is another factor.

 

[WAB]

It's been explained that convictions are formed for several reasons,: the evidence supports a proposition, desires and fears drive faith in a God or gods, etc, etc....and that your use of 'forced to believe' is a Strawman.

Please stop using Strawman Arguments.

Fear - not all theists are "driven" by fear.
Desires - don't all individuals have desires? And, if determinism is true, then no one chooses their desires. They can choose to pursue what they desire, but they cannot "choose" their desires.

Hence, there is zero basis, on the materialist, determinist account, for holding individuals responsible for their actions, including horrible criminals, dictators, evil capitalist pig-dogs, or ethical scientists, or ethical individuals of ANY sort.

NOTE: this does NOT mean that I think individuals should NOT be incarcerated for being criminals, particularly the very dangerous ones. I DO think that incarceration is morally unethical for individuals who have not done harm to another person, or who are just harmful to themselves. Of course, this leads to questions about what constitutes harm - ain't goin' there right now. But will if I must.

I didn't mean to suggest that all theists are driven by fear. Some may not be, but nevertheless an underlying fear of death, disease, loss, sorrow, pain and so on are factors. The promise eternal life in paradise, reunion with loved ones, etc, attract some to find solace in faith. Conditioning is another factor.

Agreed.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Objective facts can be confirmed by multiple, independent observers.

Subjective refers to matters of personal opinion and are subject to personal bias.

In regards to morality, which seeks the best good and least harm for everyone, to the degree that benefits and harms can be objectively measured, morality is objective. We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species. And we can demonstrate that meeting our basic physical needs for air, water, and food are objectively good for us. This gives us some hope that we might resolve some of the higher level needs as well, even though moving up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs into thing s like "self-realization" is very fuzzy and gray.

 

[The AntiChris]

In regards to morality, which seeks the best good and least harm for everyone, to the degree that benefits and harms can be objectively measured, morality is objective.

I'm not sure about this (sounds like Sam Harris).

What we consider to be a harm or benefit is a value judgement so not objective.