"Objective" Evidence

[untermensche]

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

Knowing ultimately what is going on is impossible.

Knowing what your experiences tell you about how things are moving is helpful.

Science gets around it with physical unambiguous definitions of mass, distanced, and time.

If you time some event it is pure subjective experience.

The event witnessed is a subjective experience.

The watch is a subjective experience.

How far the second hand moved is a subjective experience.

There is nothing objective in any of it.

 

[DBT]

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.

Subjective experience can include illusions, delusions, etc, if someones brain is not working properly - that is, providing a reliable mental representation of the objective external world - given dysfunctional, a person may experience all sorts of things, flying,, walking through walls (also in dreams, these not being based on objective information), but this is obviously an illusion, obviously purely subjective.

The objective reality being that nobody can walk through a wall because the wall is in fact objective, it does not allow for flawed subjective experience. It is what it is regardless of your perception of it.

 

[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.

Subjective experience can include illusions, delusions, etc, if someones brain is not working properly - that is, providing a reliable mental representation of the objective external world - given dysfunctional, a person may experience all sorts of things, flying,, walking through walls (also in dreams, these not being based on objective information), but this is obviously an illusion, obviously purely subjective.

The objective reality being that nobody can walk through a wall because the wall is in fact objective, it does not allow for flawed subjective experience. It is what it is regardless of your perception of it.

You cannot speak of any "objective reality".

You can only talk of your experiences.

And your experiences inform your mind it is best to just believe the wall is there and not try to move through it.

There is utility in believing the wall is there.

But no way to prove the wall is there.

 

[steve_bank]

I am objectively subjective, or am I subjectively objective? This is all so very confusing.

 

[DBT]

Subjective experience can include illusions, delusions, etc, if someones brain is not working properly - that is, providing a reliable mental representation of the objective external world - given dysfunctional, a person may experience all sorts of things, flying,, walking through walls (also in dreams, these not being based on objective information), but this is obviously an illusion, obviously purely subjective.

The objective reality being that nobody can walk through a wall because the wall is in fact objective, it does not allow for flawed subjective experience. It is what it is regardless of your perception of it.

You cannot speak of any "objective reality".

Sure I can. In fact I have. Your physical body literally and objectively cannot walk through a solid wall regardless of your experience....you may be sleepwalking, not conscious of the wall at all, yet the wall will not allow you to pass through. The wall is an objective barrier.

 

[untermensche]

I am objectively subjective, or am I subjectively objective? This is all so very confusing.

You are to you an objective subject.

To me you are all subjective. Nothing objective.

 

[untermensche]

Subjective experience can include illusions, delusions, etc, if someones brain is not working properly - that is, providing a reliable mental representation of the objective external world - given dysfunctional, a person may experience all sorts of things, flying,, walking through walls (also in dreams, these not being based on objective information), but this is obviously an illusion, obviously purely subjective.

The objective reality being that nobody can walk through a wall because the wall is in fact objective, it does not allow for flawed subjective experience. It is what it is regardless of your perception of it.

You cannot speak of any "objective reality".

Sure I can. In fact I have. Your physical body literally and objectively cannot walk through a solid wall regardless of your experience....you may be sleepwalking, not conscious of the wall at all, yet the wall will not allow you to pass through. The wall is an objective barrier.

You can say anything.

Prove the table is more than a subjective experience.

 

[skepticalbip]

Subjective experience can include illusions, delusions, etc, if someones brain is not working properly - that is, providing a reliable mental representation of the objective external world - given dysfunctional, a person may experience all sorts of things, flying,, walking through walls (also in dreams, these not being based on objective information), but this is obviously an illusion, obviously purely subjective.

The objective reality being that nobody can walk through a wall because the wall is in fact objective, it does not allow for flawed subjective experience. It is what it is regardless of your perception of it.

You cannot speak of any "objective reality".

Sure I can. In fact I have. Your physical body literally and objectively cannot walk through a solid wall regardless of your experience....you may be sleepwalking, not conscious of the wall at all, yet the wall will not allow you to pass through. The wall is an objective barrier.

You are wasting your time. UM is convinced that the idea that he could be a disembodied consciousness drifting alone in an infinite void is a "deep philosophical" position. All you will get in response to your posts is variations of "you can't know that", "all you can know is subjective experiences"... etc.

 

[untermensche]

You are wasting your time. UM is convinced that the idea that he could be a disembodied consciousness drifting alone in an infinite void is a "deep philosophical" position. All you will get in response to your posts is variations of "you can't know that", "all you can know is subjective experiences"... etc.

That is not true.

From the knowledge of experience one can make two subjective conclusions.

One can subjectively conclude that all that exists is experience.

One can also subjectively conclude that experience exists and there are objects behind experience.

It is up to the subject to subjectively decide.

Or one can be a rational agnostic and not have total faith in either conclusion.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are wasting your time. UM is convinced that the idea that he could be a disembodied consciousness drifting alone in an infinite void is a "deep philosophical" position. All you will get in response to your posts is variations of "you can't know that", "all you can know is subjective experiences"... etc.

That is not true.
.

Then you haven't actually thought out the ramifications of the nonsense you have been posting. If you had then you would have to believe that you could be nothing but a disembodied consciousness.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Blah blah blah, global scepticism (sic), blah blah blah.

It goes without saying that only a particularly narrow minded sort of Trumpster would be unaware that the rest of the world spell 'scepticism' correctly, rather than the Websterised simplification adopted by American low brows.

Me, I would never have said that. "Trumpsters" seem very sensitive people. Although... perhaps not so much when it comes to spelling.

Just as it goes without saying that this bollocks about only knowing experience assumes Cartesian dualism.

Bollocks.

That we only know our subjective experience doesn't imply that there isn't something we don't know. And what this something could be is anybody's guess, and why not a physical world.

If you don't take the religious position that there is more than one substance then existence of mental events is evidence of the physical events that instantiate them.

No, it's not like that. All we can say is that we have the impression that our perceptions are a physical world. And we usually take this impression at face value. That would be called, I believe, "naive realism". That's just... naive. It's also an impression we can't shake however hard we try. That in itself is interesting but it's no evidence of anything. It's merely the suggestion of something.

And, obviously, just admitting to yourself that you don't actually know that there is a physical world could not possibly entail anything as to the existence or otherwise of a physical world and, therefore, could not possibly entail Dualism.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You are wasting your time. UM is convinced that the idea that he could be a disembodied consciousness drifting alone in an infinite void is a "deep philosophical" position. All you will get in response to your posts is variations of "you can't know that", "all you can know is subjective experiences"... etc.

That is not true.
.

Then you haven't actually thought out the ramifications of the nonsense you have been posting. If you had then you would have to believe that you could be nothing but a disembodied consciousness.

You are not forced to make that subjective conclusion.

You can rationally remain agnostic on the matter.

But all we know are experiences. We know nothing else except what we decide to make from those experiences.

 

[untermensche]

Me, I would never have said that. "Trumpsters" seem very sensitive people. Although... perhaps not so much when it comes to spelling.

Just as it goes without saying that this bollocks about only knowing experience assumes Cartesian dualism.

Bollocks.

That we only know our subjective experience doesn't imply that there isn't something we don't know. And what this something could be is anybody's guess, and why not a physical world.

If you don't take the religious position that there is more than one substance then existence of mental events is evidence of the physical events that instantiate them.

No, it's not like that. All we can say is that we have the impression that our perceptions are a physical world. And we usually take this impression at face value. That would be called, I believe, "naive realism". That's just... naive. It's also an impression we can't shake however hard we try. That in itself is interesting but it's no evidence of anything. It's merely the suggestion of something.

And, obviously, just admitting to yourself that you don't actually know that there is a physical world could not possibly entail anything as to the existence or otherwise of a physical world and, therefore, could not possibly entail Dualism.
EB

Cries of dualism are a worthless cop out if you have no clue what a body actually is.

 

[steve_bank]

Denying or questiong an existrence outside of your thoghts can in some cases be a mental illness when it interferes wutrh your ability to function.

 

[untermensche]

Denying or questiong an existrence outside of your thoghts can in some cases be a mental illness when it interferes wutrh your ability to function.

If you question the existence of the wall you will likely not get very far.

If you are driving and question the existence of other cars you will likely not be driving very long.

Experiences of objects force us to take them seriously.

They are still only subjective experiences but to question the existence of objects is counter productive.

To assume there are objects behind the experiences of objects is productive and useful.

It is still an assumption, a belief. Never knowledge like the knowledge of experience is knowledge.

 

[steve_bank]

Being the engineer I am I always looked for ways to resolve a dispute by demonstration. This is the Bank Reality Test or BRT for short.

Close your eyes and imagine you are runningn into a brick wall head down as fast as you can. Make a note of the experince. Keeping your eyes closed put your head down and run into a real brick wall as fast as you can. Make a note of the results and compare to the first experiemnt.

Then come back and be prepared to discuss reality inner and outer, and subjevtive vs objective experience.

 

[fast]

Naive realism seems sensible enough. I like it.

 

[DBT]

Sure I can. In fact I have. Your physical body literally and objectively cannot walk through a solid wall regardless of your experience....you may be sleepwalking, not conscious of the wall at all, yet the wall will not allow you to pass through. The wall is an objective barrier.

You are wasting your time. UM is convinced that the idea that he could be a disembodied consciousness drifting alone in an infinite void is a "deep philosophical" position. All you will get in response to your posts is variations of "you can't know that", "all you can know is subjective experiences"... etc.

Yeah, I know, it is sad. What can you do.

 

[DBT]

Sure I can. In fact I have. Your physical body literally and objectively cannot walk through a solid wall regardless of your experience....you may be sleepwalking, not conscious of the wall at all, yet the wall will not allow you to pass through. The wall is an objective barrier.

You can say anything.

Prove the table is more than a subjective experience.

Proof is easy. Try to walk through a solid wall. You can't. You may howl -''that is your subjective experience'' - and probably will, but you still can't pass though the objective barrier of a solid wall. Nobody can. it the same for everyone. Hence it is objective

 

[untermensche]

Being the engineer I am I always looked for ways to resolve a dispute by demonstration. This is the Bank Reality Test or BRT for short.

Close your eyes and imagine you are runningn into a brick wall head down as fast as you can. Make a note of the experince. Keeping your eyes closed put your head down and run into a real brick wall as fast as you can. Make a note of the results and compare to the first experiemnt.

Then come back and be prepared to discuss reality inner and outer, and subjevtive vs objective experience.

Meaningless.

An imagining is not the same kind of experience as "seeing" something.

Two completely different kinds of experiences.

One we take seriously the other we do not.

If we have the experience of "seeing" something we have been conditioned from birth to take it seriously.

It is still just a subjective experience. It is not anything more. It is a subjective experience we actively take seriously.

It is a different kind of experience from actively using your mind to imagine something.

There is the passive mind that experiences, and the active mind that moves the body and the thoughts and can shape experiences to a degree.

Imaginings are part of the active mind.

Seeing something is part of the passive mind. Not totally passive but there is a passive aspect to it.

But all there is are experiences and beliefs about experiences.

There is nothing objective to speak of.

One can speak of their faith in objects however.

And most would see that as a rational faith.