"Objective" Evidence

[Subsymbolic]

My infinite loop detector is sounding. Hard to communicate with somebody with a limited vocabulary.

I've gotten all I can out of this.

Infuriating isn't it.

Not at all.

It was a good sparring session, I gained from it and now it is diminishing returns.

Getting annoyed with someone on an anonymous forum makes no sense.

You might not believe it, but this is my specialist subject. I enjoy it, I care about it and I enjoy arguing it with anyone who is sincere. I don’t believe that someone can sincerely be so wrong, so often about so many things. What he does do, literally every time is drag promising discussions into the dirt and keep them there. There are a few people here who are also experts. They don’t post because there’s nothing to attract them and people like Koy or Ruby who have been doing this so long that they might as well have degrees in the subject are in and out responding to the troll rather than engaged in a discussion that breaks ground and makes new interesting mistakes that are not standard bullshit wannabe filosofer fare.

 

[steve_bank]

Not at all.

It was a good sparring session, I gained from it and now it is diminishing returns.

Getting annoyed with someone on an anonymous forum makes no sense.

You might not believe it, but this is my specialist subject. I enjoy it, I care about it and I enjoy arguing it with anyone who is sincere. I don’t believe that someone can sincerely be so wrong, so often about so many things. What he does do, literally every time is drag promising discussions into the dirt and keep them there. There are a few people here who are also experts. They don’t post because there’s nothing to attract them and people like Koy or Ruby who have been doing this so long that they might as well have degrees in the subject are in and out responding to the troll rather than engaged in a discussion that breaks ground and makes new interesting mistakes that are not standard bullshit wannabe filosofer fare.

I never argued this topic before, people usually know the difference between subjective, objective, and potential grey areas. It raised questions for me I had not considered and now my thinking has changed a little, that's what the forum is about for me.
.
As to the comments on untermenche, the expression is 'flogging a dead horse'....unable to question oneself

 

[untermensche]

People use the terms subjective and objective without thinking about it.

But if you actually think about it you realize the term "objective" describes a subjective belief about the root cause of experience.

All that is known and can be known is the subjective.

We have no way to peek behind experience and see if there is something there.

If you believe there is something behind an experience you say the experience was of an object.

 

[steve_bank]

Ask vot from whom the smell of bullshit commeth, it commeth from thee.

 

[untermensche]

Cognitive dissonance.

I said not one thing that is untrue.

What you CALL objective is just what you THINK about the subjective.

You have no objective. You only have the subjective.

You will never actually see the table.

You will only experience a subjective representation of the table.

 

[steve_bank]

untermench

You are not making an argument, you are making declarative senrences not wll structured into a coherent argument. Try to develpe coherent completev paragraphs that make sense.

That is why you are taking so much flak.

I am beginning to see how important the polisci and philosophy classes I took are.

 

[untermensche]

untermench

You are not making an argument, you are making declarative senrences not wll structured into a coherent argument. Try to develpe coherent completev paragraphs that make sense.

That is why you are taking so much flak.

I am beginning to see how important the polisci and philosophy classes I took are.

Those statements can be disputed. But the idea of the statement needs to be addressed.

If I say all you have access to is the subjective do you understand the idea?

Do you dispute it?

If you do with what idea or argument do you dispute it with?

 

[fast]

Cognitive dissonance.

I said not one thing that is untrue.

What you CALL objective is just what you THINK about the subjective.

You have no objective. You only have the subjective.

You will never actually see the table.

You will only experience a subjective representation of the table.

It hurts my head to actually think that I understand you. I just wish that what you have in mind when you speak was properly reflected with the words you use. You fixate and you contort. You fixate on an idea and you contort language. It's pervasive. It's not always that what you have in mind is not true, but what you actually say doesn't jibe with what you actually have in mind. It's not that I'm a mind reader that I know this. It's experience and intelligence. Deciphering your message reminds me of the challenge I had with uncle jim. Why do you twist things so? Just go with convention!

 

[untermensche]

It's experience and intelligence.

That is what I have said.

All is subjective experience and what we subjectively make of it.

 

[steve_bank]

untermench

You are not making an argument, you are making declarative senrences not wll structured into a coherent argument. Try to develpe coherent completev paragraphs that make sense.

That is why you are taking so much flak.

I am beginning to see how important the polisci and philosophy classes I took are.

Those statements can be disputed. But the idea of the statement needs to be addressed.

If I say all you have access to is the subjective do you understand the idea?

Do you dispute it?

If you do with what idea or argument do you dispute it with?

I told you I understand what you are saying and how your position fails with specific examples which you would not address.

You respond with the same set of unconnected declarations unable to synthesize a complete coherent paragraph. There is no point in engaging you.

 

[fromderinside]

Cognitive dissonance.

I said not one thing that is untrue.

What you CALL objective is just what you THINK about the subjective.

You have no objective. You only have the subjective.

You will never actually see the table.

You will only experience a subjective representation of the table.

In context with this thread when one's subjective representation of a table has verified what one had drawn and what one has drawn or it has been validated by both the building and photographing of the table then that experiences has been validated as objective.

One can't just assert it's all subjective if one can use what one has experienced to replicate what one has experienced. When the hands recreate the table or the brush is moved and replicates the red on medium what one has seen one has objective evidence that what one's experiences are objective.

One can objectively use responses from others to produce objective boundaries for one's sensations and perceptions that others can verify. How can one subjectively verify anything., for instance, claim without proof that we have an innate grammar. That cannot be if one can only subjectively experience since there is no objective basis for such a mechanism to evolve. We don't have an innate grammar because that would violate laws of physics. But it is possible we have evolved representational machines that when properly engaged do produce solutions that seem as if a grammar is inherent.

Let me put it another way. If one's equipment tends to produce faithfully representations of what one experiences then that equipment has evolved to do so. Since we now hold theory of evolution as how we came to be what we are we have improved our knowledge of our experience. One may not be able to reproduce the object, but, one is the product of an evolution that tends to realistically represent what one can sense. So to put ianother way our subjective experience tends to be quite objective facilitating yet even better equipment producing even better representations of the world in which we live in future offspring.

 

[untermensche]

untermench

You are not making an argument, you are making declarative senrences not wll structured into a coherent argument. Try to develpe coherent completev paragraphs that make sense.

That is why you are taking so much flak.

I am beginning to see how important the polisci and philosophy classes I took are.

Those statements can be disputed. But the idea of the statement needs to be addressed.

If I say all you have access to is the subjective do you understand the idea?

Do you dispute it?

If you do with what idea or argument do you dispute it with?

I told you I understand what you are saying and how your position fails with specific examples which you would not address.

You respond with the same set of unconnected declarations unable to synthesize a complete coherent paragraph. There is no point in engaging you.

If you will not even try to answer the questions I put to you then I cannot help you.

This requires thinking about the way things really are.

Not how you have assumed things are your whole life without thinking about them.

 

[untermensche]

In context with this thread when one's subjective representation of a table has verified what one had drawn and what one has drawn or it has been validated by both the building and photographing of the table then that experiences has been validated as objective.

Those are all subjective experiences.

You are saying that when the subjective experiences are of a certain nature we assume the experience is of some object in the world.

We cannot know the object in any way.

We can only know our subjective experiences of it.

The experiences are known.

The object is something we subjectively imagine is there based on the subjective experiences.

One can't just assert it's all subjective if one can use what one has experienced to replicate what one has experienced.

If you are subjectively experiencing something you can use your active mind to create the experience of your hands painting a picture of it.

But you have only created an experience of a body moving and painting a picture.

You have no object.

You have experience on top of experience on top of experience.

That is all there is. Subjective experiences and what we subjectively make of them.

One can objectively use responses from others to produce objective boundaries for one's sensations and perceptions that others can verify.

What part of it is not a subjective experience or something we subjectively make of experience?

How can one subjectively verify anything., for instance, claim without proof that we have an innate grammar.

The experiences say we do have an innate grammar.

We could not acquire a language without one.

If all it took were cognitive skills then chimps could acquire language.

If one's equipment tends to produce faithfully representations of what one experiences then that equipment has evolved to do so.

That is a subjective statement you have subjectively drawn based on your subjective experiences.

All one can make is an experience.

One can force the experience of their body to move. And one can make the experience of a sculpture.

 

[DBT]

It's experience and intelligence.

That is what I have said.

All is subjective experience and what we subjectively make of it.

Yet you still can't walk through brick walls or fly through the sky like Superman....except in dreams where the experience is possible, just not objectively real.......nor do you consciously form your subjective experiences, that being the work of a brain.

 

[untermensche]

It's experience and intelligence.

That is what I have said.

All is subjective experience and what we subjectively make of it.

Yet you still can't walk through brick walls or fly through the sky like Superman....except in dreams where the experience is possible, just not objectively real.......nor do you consciously form your subjective experiences, that being the work of a brain.

You can't have the subjective experience of walking through what you subjectively experience as a wall.

But that doesn't make one part of it more than a subjective experience.

You have no object unless you subjectively choose to have an object.

Objects are something we claim are behind experiences.

But all we have access to are the experiences. We just assume there are objects. We do not know.

What we know and all we know are the experiences.

 

[steve_bank]

The term that originated in the 60s is tripping....endless profound revelations that aint so profound.

 

[untermensche]

The term that originated in the 60s is tripping....endless profound revelations that aint so profound.

"Tripping" referred to LSD. To take a "trip".

Saying something is not profound is just a way to not look at any of it.

You can claim there is some object behind the experience of the table. And you may be right.

There is no way to know.

All we have are subjective experiences and what we subjectively make of them.

Science does not have objects.

It just doesn't care that all it has is subjective experiences if it can predict future subjective experiences.

 

[DBT]

Yet you still can't walk through brick walls or fly through the sky like Superman....except in dreams where the experience is possible, just not objectively real.......nor do you consciously form your subjective experiences, that being the work of a brain.

You can't have the subjective experience of walking through what you subjectively experience as a wall.

The wall is a barrier regardless of anyones experience....the wall is an objective barrier. It is a barrier for all who encounter its objectivity.

 

[steve_bank]

If everything is subjective, then knowing 'what is really going on' is impossible.

Science gets around it with physical unambiguous definitions of mass, distanced, and time. Anything quantified in SI units is considered objective. Observations quantified in SI units are considered objective. Discussion on objective measurement can be and is often subjective. Subjective meaning for example implications of objectice observation and measurement.

Objective in the sense of objective science does not equate to absolute knowledge of 'the way things really are'. Relativity precludes absolute knowledge of reality, that would require absolute reference points, which are impossible for us. Our objective measurements all boil down to relative comparison to the kilogram, meter, and second. The meter, kilogram. and second are not subjective. They are arbitrary definitions not open to subjective interpretation.

Subjective and objective form a duality used to categorize the way we analyze perceptions.

 

[untermensche]

The wall is a barrier regardless of anyones experience....

No.

The wall being a barrier is PURE subjective experience.

It is the subjective experience of a solid object.

PURE subjective experience. Nothing more.

Except it is a subjective experience of a thinking entity.

You can make claims of objects but cannot demonstrate them.

All you have to work with are subjective experiences.