"Objective" Evidence

[untermensche]

I know nothing of hard problems or easy problems

I see no problems solved.

I see many that don't even know what they are trying to solve.

I see many deny the subject.

When what they are is a subject.

And what they have access to are subjective experiences.

Not objective truths.

And some call their own cognitive dissonance "bad writing". But it is OK. It is writing that is trying to create cognitive dissonance. Trying to snap a mind from it's complacent belief system.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In order to have a subjective experience, there must first be something objective to subjectively experience. That is a matter of logic (including UM’s, who has repeatedly maintained that “experience”—and “mind”—is generated by a brain, which, if true, instantiates an objective condition.

Calling that process a “belief” is just sophomoric dramatics and typically intended to imply a “religious” belief; i.e., one held in spite of the evidence contradicting it. That is at the heart of all of this nonsense, since we all agree that the hard problem is one of function not form. We don’t have to imagine a brain in a vat; that condition is already present, just substitute “vat” with “skull.”

But so what? It is a robust system that is present in not just our species. So, what is the point of equivocating belief in this manner? First bong hit? Freshman awakening?

- - - Updated - - -

I know nothing of hard problems or easy problems

I see no problems solved.

I see many that don't even know what they are trying to solve.

I see many deny the subject.

When what they are is a subject.

And what they have access to are subjective experiences.

Not objective truths.

And some call their own cognitive dissonance "bad writing".

Then who the fuck are you talking to?

 

[untermensche]

In order to have a subjective experience, there must first be something objective to subjectively experience. That is a matter of logic (including UM’s, who has repeatedly maintained that “experience”—and “mind”—is generated by a brain, which, if true, instantiates an objective condition.

Calling that process a “belief” is just sophomoric dramatics and typically intended to imply a “religious” belief; i.e., one held in spite of the evidence contradicting it. That is at the heart of all of this nonsense, since we all agree that the hard problem is one of function not form. We don’t have to imagine a brain in a vat; that condition is already present, just substitute “vat” with “skull.”

But so what? It is a robust system that is present in not just our species. So, what is the point of equivocating belief in this manner? First bong hit? Freshman awakening?

Saying there MUST be an object and stomping your feet real hard doesn't create an object.

You have faith in objects.

An obnoxious kind of faith.

It is what you have subjectively made of your subjective experiences.

Some are an ugly subject.

- - - Updated - - -

I know nothing of hard problems or easy problems

I see no problems solved.

I see many that don't even know what they are trying to solve.

I see many deny the subject.

When what they are is a subject.

And what they have access to are subjective experiences.

Not objective truths.

And some call their own cognitive dissonance "bad writing".

Then who the fuck are you talking to?

You mean what do I have faith I am communicating with?

I am hoping for an active mind.

Is there one where you are?

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Another lap around the track.

If all is subjective, hoe can you say how things really are? What do you mean by subjective?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You have faith in objects.

I infer that there are objects, but even if you wish to use religious terms to describe it, who gives a shit? I remember my first bong hit too, but you are not stating anything knew or even controversial. We all agree that the hard problem exists. What the fuck is your point? All you keep doing is restating tautologies.

Then who the fuck are you talking to?

You mean what do I have faith I am communicating with?

Sophomoric semantics games.

I am hoping for an active mind.

Then you have instantiated objectivity, since to hope or have “faith” in or whatever idiotic equivocal term you wish to employ necessitates that my mind is separate from yours, which in turn means it objectively exists independently of yours.

So you are acting as if your senses are accurately reflecting an objective universe, so who gives a flying fuck how you personally decide to define it? You have faith. I infer. Non-controversial and a pointless end game.

 

[untermensche]

I infer that there are objects, but even if you wish to use religious terms to describe it, who gives a shit?

It is not a religious term here.

It is a term to accurately describe the situation.

Experience is knowledge.

Objects are faith in certain experiences.

to hope or have “faith” in or whatever idiotic equivocal term you wish to employ necessitates that my mind is separate from yours

Having faith that other minds exist is subjective faith.

It is nothing objective.

I remember my first bong hit too, but you are not stating anything knew or even controversial.

It is Descartes.

If there are thoughts then there is a thinker.

To be a thinker is to be a thing that experiences thoughts.

It is the recognition that we are all subjective entities with nothing but subjective experience as our guide.

That one is experiencing when one is experiencing cannot be doubted.

But what one is experiencing can be questioned.

Some think the subject is a fiction.

It is the absolute center of all things.

 

[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.

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.

How does one experience (genuinely experience) going over a waterfall in a kayak if there is not both a waterfall and kayak?

 

[steve_bank]

A more objective rendering would be 'I fart therefore I have physical existence' or 'I stink therefore I am'.

Descartes' fanous saying is self referential, so by your logic is subjective and not proof of anything.

Your reasoning leads to the question ho or do we know anything. Obyiosly we do know about reality in objective ways through scince, and it is communicated to other 'minds'.

Ok, so how do you know you are not in a coma dreaming? I have had some pretty realistic dreams. How do I know you are not a computer program and there is a human on the other end?

We know there are other minds by observation and circumstantial evidence. I cry when hurt, I se others cry when hurt and draw a conclusion.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is not a religious term here.

You are clearly using it as a religious term.

It is a term to accurately describe the situation.

For you. Inference is the far more accurate term to describe the situation.

It is the recognition that we are all subjective entities with nothing but subjective experience as our guide.

AND....? WHO CARES? You keep repeating this as if it’s revelatory. It is not. It is, quite literally, freshman level philosophy that is ultimately self-defeating as you keep ironically demonstrating.

You are acting as if there is an objective reality no matter what you argue so whatever point you’re trying to make has already screwed its own pooch.

 

[untermensche]

How does one experience (genuinely experience) going over a waterfall in a kayak if there is not both a waterfall and kayak?

How does one experience "red"?

There is no "red" in the world.

EM radiation does not have color.

Color is something created by brains that does not exist in the world.

Yet we act as if objects have color.

We believe they have color.

 

[untermensche]

It is, quite literally, freshman level philosophy that is ultimately self-defeating as you keep ironically demonstrating.

Half right.

It is no more than something that could be discussed in a freshmen philosophy course.

Which makes it interesting.

Nothing self defeating about it. You have delusions about that.

It is the situation we exist in. It is the place we start.

We are subjects that only have access to subjective experience.

We do not know objects. We know what we experience and believe objects exist.

The difference between knowing and believing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which makes it interesting.

For a freshman.

It is the place we start.

You’ve been at “start” for dozens of repetitive pages. No one but you is a freshman. It is time you moved on to sophomore level at the very least.

 

[untermensche]

First they condemn.

Then they wave their arms.

Then they see.

Then they say it is nothing of interest.

 

[skepticalbip]

Which makes it interesting.

For a freshman.

It is the place we start.

You’ve been at “start” for dozens of repetitive pages. No one but you is a freshman. It is time you moved on to sophomore level at the very least.

He hasn't yet gotten to the level of using rational reasoning to understand the reality behind "subjective experience". Maybe he will eventually read a little more philosophy and shock himself.

 

[untermensche]

For a freshman.



You’ve been at “start” for dozens of repetitive pages. No one but you is a freshman. It is time you moved on to sophomore level at the very least.

He hasn't yet gotten to the level of using rational reasoning to understand the reality behind "subjective experience". Maybe he will eventually read a little more philosophy and shock himself.

Total bull.

Objects are believed to be there and that has enough utility for most to survive.

So most people don't care.

But there is no proof of objects.

There are only subjective experiences.

And what active minds subjectively make of those experiences.

 

[steve_bank]

untermenche, if these views of yours like questioning existence of other minds are real issues for you, how do you get through life without being and feeling isolated with no sense of common humanity?

 

[untermensche]

untermenche, if these views of yours like questioning existence of other minds are real issues for you, how do you get through life without being and feeling isolated with no sense of common humanity?

A conversation is one mind dealing with another.

Not a body dealing with a body.

And you don't really care if sex is only an experience since it is a pleasurable experience and there is a lot of motivation to engage in it.

 

[steve_bank]

Curuiouser and curiosir. Feels like the opening to a Twig light Zone episode.

I'm getting a creepy vibe, Like HP Lovecraft and Alcester Crowley. Witchcraft and Stannic rituals.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

First they condemn.

Then they wave their arms.

Then they see.

Then they say it is nothing of interest.

 

[DBT]

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.

I was talking about his specific position on the issue of objective information in relation to experience. I'm not saying that everything he says is wrong, only the points of contention...his position on objective information in this instance.

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

That was not the point. I've already mentioned the distinction that can be made between objective reality and our experience of it.