"Objective" Evidence

[untermensche]

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

That is not proof a wall is behind the experience.

If you say you have the experience of not being able push through what you experience as a wall and I say I have the same experience all we have are our subjective experiences.

We have no wall.

And it is total absurdity for you to say what is the same for everyone. You have no idea about what everyone can do.

All you know is what you have thus far experienced in your tiny sliver of experience.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Yes, it is tempting to try to engage UM in an actual discussion. However, from past experience I've found that it only leads to frustration because UM only keeps repeating variations of the same statement without ever actually engaging in discussion. My only solution, to avoid frustration, is to only state my response once then ignore his repetitive assertions.

 

[untermensche]

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

Yes, it is tempting to try to engage UM in an actual discussion. However, from past experience I've found that it only leads to frustration because UM only keeps repeating variations of the same statement without ever actually engaging in discussion. My only solution, to avoid frustration, is to only state my response once then ignore his repetitive assertions.

I endure inane criticism and terrible arguments.

You cannot tell me of some thing you have access to that is not an experience.

You can talk of your experiences of the wall.

And your BELIEF a wall is behind the experiences.

You seem to think "belief" is a dirty word.

It is all you have about objects. You believe they are there.

And you have your subjective reasons for believing it.

Your experience has taught you that the best way to deal with the things we experience with our visual system is to believe they are there.

It could be called a rational belief but it is a belief none-the-less.

It is not direct knowledge like the direct knowledge of subjective experience.

 

[fast]

Just as a picture is not what it's a picture of, neither is an experience what's it's an experience of.

 

[untermensche]

Both a picture and what it is a picture of are both experiences.

Both the same exact thing in that respect.

 

[steve_bank]

Both a picture and what it is a picture of are both experiences.

Both the same exact thing in that respect.

The painting is a subjective representation of physical scene that is painted. Physical reality does not change based on how it is painted. If I take a light meter to measure the light reflected by the scene to set F stop on a camera, that is an objective measurement.

There was a school of painters called Photo Realism or something like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Just as a picture is not what it's a picture of, neither is an experience what's it's an experience of.

Not bad at all.

 

[untermensche]

Both a picture and what it is a picture of are both experiences.

Both the same exact thing in that respect.

The painting is a subjective representation of physical scene that is painted.

It is a representation of something that is experienced.

The artist uses an experience to create the experience of their body making a representation of something that is experienced.

Physical reality does not change based on how it is painted.

"Reality" is just a label which means something experienced with vision or hearing and sometimes with pressure and other tactile senses.

It is a label applied to a category of experience.

But applying a label to an experience does not make it more than an experience.

If I take a light meter to measure the light reflected by the scene to set F stop on a camera, that is an objective measurement.

It is you subjectively experiencing a measurement. Everything seen is an experience.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes everything is an experience. Sensory inputs processed by the brain.

Experience as a category is subdivided into subcategories, classes of experience. Physical pain from injury and emotional distress. Under experiences there are subjective and objective experiences. You are conflating the general experience with the specific subjective experience.

Under house pets there are fish, birds, cats, and dogs. House pets as a general category is not the specific category of cats. Likewise subjective is not all experience, subjective experience a specific set of experiences..

Top level is perceptions.

Under perceptions there can be a category called evidence.

Under evidence there can be classes of evidence... subjective, objective, and possibly indeterminate.

I understand what you are saying, everything is a perception subject to interpretation. I agree, but that does not tell the whole story. We create classes of evidence objective and subjective. In a crime drama it would be circumstantial versus hard objective evidence like DNA and fingerprints.

The equating the term subjective as all perceptions and experiences is a misuse of the word as commonly used in language. The meaning of the words objective and subjective exist as a duality.

 

[fast]

Both a picture and what it is a picture of are both experiences.

Both the same exact thing in that respect.

We can experience both, but what's being experienced is not itself an experience.

 

[untermensche]

Both a picture and what it is a picture of are both experiences.

Both the same exact thing in that respect.

We can experience both, but what's being experienced is not itself an experience.

It is only a belief and a claim that there is more than the experience.

 

[steve_bank]

Both a picture and what it is a picture of are both experiences.

Both the same exact thing in that respect.

We can experience both, but what's being experienced is not itself an experience.

Metaphysical nonsense of the highest order. I can appreciate the uneven bars in gymnastics, my favorite to see. But it has no practcal use, it becomes an art form and self expression. So too witrh a lot of metaphysics, an art form with no practical value.

 

[untermensche]

Both a picture and what it is a picture of are both experiences.

Both the same exact thing in that respect.

We can experience both, but what's being experienced is not itself an experience.

Metaphysical nonsense of the highest order. I can appreciate the uneven bars in gymnastics, my favorite to see. But it has no practcal use, it becomes an art form and self expression. So too witrh a lot of metaphysics, an art form with no practical value.

Accurately describing how things are is not useless.

The experience is knowledge.

The object is belief.

 

[DBT]

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

Yes, it is tempting to try to engage UM in an actual discussion. However, from past experience I've found that it only leads to frustration because UM only keeps repeating variations of the same statement without ever actually engaging in discussion. My only solution, to avoid frustration, is to only state my response once then ignore his repetitive assertions.

I endure inane criticism and terrible arguments.

You cannot tell me of some thing you have access to that is not an experience.

You can talk of your experiences of the wall.

And your BELIEF a wall is behind the experiences.

You seem to think "belief" is a dirty word.

It is all you have about objects. You believe they are there.

And you have your subjective reasons for believing it.

Your experience has taught you that the best way to deal with the things we experience with our visual system is to believe they are there.

It could be called a rational belief but it is a belief none-the-less.

It is not direct knowledge like the direct knowledge of subjective experience.

You are wrong.

Everyone can see that you are wrong.

Everyone can see why you are wrong.

Everyone can see the tactics that you use in an attempt to keep your erroneous assertions afloat.

Nevertheless, you persist and persist and persist with these erroneous claims.

Your best option would be to graciously concede, and move on.

 

[fast]

I can experience what it's like to ride a roller coaster, but the experience of riding a roller coaster is something different than the roller coaster itself.

If I walk into an abandoned theme park to which I've never been before and set my eyes on an old dilapidated roller coaster, I will have experienced seeing an old dilapitated roller coaster in an abandoned theme park, but the experience is one thing while what it's an experience of is quite another. What the experience is an experience of is apart of reality (a fact that's ever present regardless of any experience). Would there not be the very same dilapitated roller coaster in an abandoned theme park even should it have been that I never discovered it for myself?

 

[Juma]

Both a picture and what it is a picture of are both experiences.

Both the same exact thing in that respect.

We can experience both, but what's being experienced is not itself an experience.

Hm. Language is a bitch:
It is the experience that you experience.
It is the same thing.
You may experience yourself experiencing (the experience)
BUT
That which causes this experience is something altogether different. (Birds, rollecoasters etc)

 

[untermensche]

I endure inane criticism and terrible arguments.

You cannot tell me of some thing you have access to that is not an experience.

You can talk of your experiences of the wall.

And your BELIEF a wall is behind the experiences.

You seem to think "belief" is a dirty word.

It is all you have about objects. You believe they are there.

And you have your subjective reasons for believing it.

Your experience has taught you that the best way to deal with the things we experience with our visual system is to believe they are there.

It could be called a rational belief but it is a belief none-the-less.

It is not direct knowledge like the direct knowledge of subjective experience.

You are wrong.

Everyone can see that you are wrong.

Everyone can see why you are wrong.

Everyone can see the tactics that you use in an attempt to keep your erroneous assertions afloat.

Nevertheless, you persist and persist and persist with these erroneous claims.

Your best option would be to graciously concede, and move on.

Jumping up and down and waving your arms is not an argument.

You have nothing but FAITH in objects. You cannot prove objects exist.

You have no way to prove they are actually there.

Having the experience of not being able to push through something is an experience. It is not an object.

The object is something we construct in our mind based on subjective experience.

That is all any person has access to. Subjective experience.

We are minds that experience things.

And we cannot peak past our experiences and know objects.

All we can know about are our subjective experiences and what we subjectively make of them.

No amount of hand waving can change this.

 

[untermensche]

I can experience what it's like to ride a roller coaster, but the experience of riding a roller coaster is something different than the roller coaster itself.

You can experience movement. That is true.

What the experience is an experience of is apart of reality (a fact that's ever present regardless of any experience).

You have no idea what is "ever present".

You only know when an experience is present.

This is all about the difference between knowing and believing.

We know our experiences.

We believe there are objects behind them. We have faith in objects.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I endure inane criticism and terrible arguments.

You cannot tell me of some thing you have access to that is not an experience.

You can talk of your experiences of the wall.

And your BELIEF a wall is behind the experiences.

You seem to think "belief" is a dirty word.

It is all you have about objects. You believe they are there.

And you have your subjective reasons for believing it.

Your experience has taught you that the best way to deal with the things we experience with our visual system is to believe they are there.

It could be called a rational belief but it is a belief none-the-less.

It is not direct knowledge like the direct knowledge of subjective experience.

You are wrong.

Everyone can see that you are wrong.

Everyone can see why you are wrong.

Everyone can see the tactics that you use in an attempt to keep your erroneous assertions afloat.

Nevertheless, you persist and persist and persist with these erroneous claims.

Your best option would be to graciously concede, and move on.

No, many people would actually agree with what UM says here. It's badly written but it's all good as far as I can tell.

You cannot tell me of any thing you know that is not an experience.

You can talk of your experience of a wall for example.

And of your belief that an actual wall is behind your experience.

But belief is all you have about physical objects. You believe they are there.

And we certainly all have good subjective reasons to think our beliefs must be true.

Your experience has taught you that the best way to deal with the things you experience with your visual system is to believe they are physically there.

It could be called a rational belief but it is a belief nonetheless.

And it is definitely not anything like the direct knowledge we have of subjective experience itself.

All excellent and I would say pretty obvious.
EB

EDIT
Except of course it should written from the first-person perspective: I cannot tell you of any thing I know that is not an experience etc...
Otherwise, the whole thing is just a contradiction between form and content. But, hey, that's UM for you!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just as a picture is not what it's a picture of, neither is an experience what's it's an experience of.

Reasoning by analogy isn't rational. It's just laziness. Experience is not a picture.

You can use analogy to explain what you mean, but it's just bad logic to also reason on this basis.

So, I will assume that's not what you did, but just for this once. Don't do it again!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes everything is an experience. Sensory inputs processed by the brain.

Experience as a category is subdivided into subcategories, classes of experience. Physical pain from injury and emotional distress. Under experiences there are subjective and objective experiences. You are conflating the general experience with the specific subjective experience.

Under house pets there are fish, birds, cats, and dogs. House pets as a general category is not the specific category of cats. Likewise subjective is not all experience, subjective experience a specific set of experiences..

Top level is perceptions.

Under perceptions there can be a category called evidence.

Under evidence there can be classes of evidence... subjective, objective, and possibly indeterminate.

I understand what you are saying, everything is a perception subject to interpretation. I agree, but that does not tell the whole story. We create classes of evidence objective and subjective. In a crime drama it would be circumstantial versus hard objective evidence like DNA and fingerprints.

The equating the term subjective as all perceptions and experiences is a misuse of the word as commonly used in language. The meaning of the words objective and subjective exist as a duality.

That's definitely not what UM means and also definitely not what the many people who insist that there's something called the '"hard problem" mean. Including me, but you don't need to pay attention to that, I'm just one and one isn't many.

So, no, you don't understand what UM is saying.
EB