"Objective" Evidence

[Elixir]

...of course you'd regress that to "my experience of other people's assertions about their experience".

To you that is just a subjective experience. Nothing more.

Right on cue.
You're quite predictable, Unter. Almost as if you think your "argument" is beyond others' understanding. It's not.
The problem is that it's sophomoric (stupid).

 

[untermensche]

You have not addressed a thing I've said.

But you have given an opinion that means nothing.

Is there anything except subjective experiences and what people subjectively make of them?

If so what is it?

 

[skepticalbip]

... you have given an opinion that means nothing.

If you look in the mirror, you will see that is what everyone has been telling you.

 

[steve_bank]

untermenche

When you read and respond to the posts do you see only 2 dimensional text, or do you see people behind it with feelings, emotions, and experiences that may differ from you?

Or are you just making 2 dimensional academic responses?

What is your perceptional and emotional and subjective experience of the forum? How do you think others experience the forum? We move from the general to the specific.

In the end philosophy and metaphysics is not academic, it is about communicating.

 

[untermensche]

Science is human experience

Yes. It is completely based on subjective experience.

There is nothing else.

The experience of gravity is objective

All experiences are subjective experiences.

I under stand what you are saying, but you are about 350 years behind.

You cannot name anything that is not an experience.

That did not end 350 years ago.

What science has done is stop caring. They have not shown there is more than experience.

In science if the right person has the right kind of subjective experience they subjectively label it "objective evidence".

Underneath the category of perceptions are subjective and objective, agree or disagree?

Those are common labels but this is an examination to find out what the labels really mean.

When we say something is objective that is an act of faith.

We have no idea if there are objects behind our experiences. But we can have faith there are.

And that is usually a good idea so we live as if there are objects behind our experiences.

We do this before we know anything. We suck at the breast. We do not question the experience.

- - - Updated - - -

... you have given an opinion that means nothing.

If you look in the mirror, you will see that is what everyone has been telling you.

It is not just my opinion that all we have access to are subjective experiences.

That is why you can name nothing else.

 

[untermensche]

untermenche

When you read and respond to the posts do you see only 2 dimensional text, or do you see people behind it with feelings, emotions, and experiences that may differ from you?

Or are you just making 2 dimensional academic responses?

What is your perceptional and emotional and subjective experience of the forum? How do you think others experience the forum? We move from the general to the specific.

In the end philosophy and metaphysics is not academic, it is about communicating.

I am here to discuss ideas.

And the exchanges here have helped me develop my arguments.

And this line of argument gets stronger the more I engage.

We only have our subjective experiences and what we subjectively make of them.

That is what it means to be a living human.

 

[steve_bank]

unrermenche

You are not discussing. You aren misapplying the word subjective. If I want to bob and weave I'd say if all is subjective than there is no subjective.

What is your definition of subjective, and how does it have mening without the objective half of the duality?

You are guilty of confirmation bias(just like TrumP), you are not advancing your arguments remain the same. From the arguments I am gaining new perspectives I did not have before.

You are still conflating perception with subjective experience. Again, define subjective in the OP context as you see it. Observing a car crash is a perception of an event. The fact the crash occurs is not subjective, or open to subjective interpretation as it would be said.Topmlevel is perceptions, under that are subjective and objective.

 

[Jobar]

Have you ever read Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, untermensche? You should; the central philosophical conundrum examined in the book is the subject/object duality. (It was required reading for the first philosophy course I ever took, back in 1975.)

 

[steve_bank]

Have you ever read Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, untermensche? You should; the central philosophical conundrum examined in the book is the subject/object duality. (It was required reading for the first philosophy course I ever took, back in 1975.)

A blast from the past. Wasn't aware it has become that significant. Dancing Wu Li Masters was another.

 

[steve_bank]

untermenche.

You have moved a little. You appear to acknowledge thoughts are a function of brain. Something you resisted over on science.

If it is all subjective, how can your views be any more valid than mine? For me philosophy is useless unless it translates into how you experience living and interacting with others. The forum over the years has benefited me.

My image of you is that of an 18th-19th century authoritarian rigid German professor who believes mind is a reality unto its own, and will brook no questions.

Explain to me how observing a car crash is subjective, the context of the OP is what is objective evidence. Our discussion is a bit of topic.

How would the observed fact of a crash in any way be subjective? Can it not be a crash through subjective interpretation of observation?

If I measure gravitational acceleration to be 9.8 meters per second squared, how is that subjective? I will acknowledge that the measurement based on scientific standards is arbitrary but not subjective. There is a difference between arbitrary and subjective.

The meter, kilogram, and second on which objective quantified observation is made are indeed arbitrary, but not open to subjective interpretation. Explain how the measurement of speed is subjective.

'...What does it mean when we say something is "objective" evidence?

It means two people agree on the same subjective experience...'

Two people witness a crash. The car is destroyed and on fire, how can they disagree on the crash they both witnessed?

Two people hear a noise. One thinks it is a firecracker, the other thinks it is a gunshot. Subjective interpretation of sensory inputs. Experience's can lead to both objective and subjective conclusions.

 

[DBT]

You have the subjective experience of not being able to push into something.

No, you literally cannot walk through the brick wall.

That is a subjective experience. The subjective experience of not being able to move a wall.

It is not more than a subjective experience and you cannot make it more than a subjective experience.

The wall is an experience. Your body is an experience. The sensations involved in not being able to move something are an experience.

Nothing but the experience of a wall.

The barrier of the wall is an experience. It is also an objective fact. Your experience of not being able to walk through the wall is based on the physical fact of the objectively impenetrable barrier of the wall

 

[untermensche]

That is a subjective experience. The subjective experience of not being able to move a wall.

It is not more than a subjective experience and you cannot make it more than a subjective experience.

The wall is an experience. Your body is an experience. The sensations involved in not being able to move something are an experience.

Nothing but the experience of a wall.

The barrier of the wall is an experience. It is also an objective fact. Your experience of not being able to walk through the wall is based on the physical fact of the objectively impenetrable barrier of the wall

It is a fact you have the subjective experience of the wall.

That is the only fact.

What you make of that subjective experience is a subjective belief.

Everything is a subjective experience.

You have no objective experiences. You do not experience the wall directly in any way. All you experience are things like hardness and not being able to move through it. All are subjective experiences of the wall.

 

[untermensche]

unrermenche

You are not discussing.

No. We are discussing.

You aren misapplying the word subjective.

The subject is the thing that actually has the experience.

If you are having an experience you are the subject.

You are still conflating perception with subjective experience

Perception is related to both experience and the will.

The will is the active part of the mind.

The mind has a passive aspect, experience, and an active aspect, the will.

 

[untermensche]

Have you ever read Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, untermensche? You should; the central philosophical conundrum examined in the book is the subject/object duality. (It was required reading for the first philosophy course I ever took, back in 1975.)

What does it have to say about any of this?

What did your reading help you understand about any of this?

Do you think is it is possible to have more than some experience of the world?

 

[untermensche]

untermenche.You have moved a little. You appear to acknowledge thoughts are a function of brain. Something you resisted over on science.

I do believe the external world exists. It is not possible to live effectively without believing it.

But it is just a belief. A belief most do not ever question. The unexamined life is common.

All I know are my experiences.

And it is possible that my experiences are all that exist. Since they are experiences and not objects.

If it is all subjective, how can your views be any more valid than mine?

If you have no argument to dispute them.

Explain to me how observing a car crash is subjective, the context of the OP is what is objective evidence. Our discussion is a bit of topic.

It's my OP and I am the one saying what I think objective evidence is.

And nobody has moved me from my position.

What is called "objective" evidence is the experience of an agreement on subjective experience.

This scientist experiences a measurement of 3 pounds. This other scientist experiences the same measurement.

It is all subjective experience and reports of subjective experience.

But if it is agreement of subjective experience between the right two individuals, trustworthy I suppose with a laugh, it is called "objective" evidence.

Two people witness a crash. The car is destroyed and on fire, how can they disagree on the crash they both witnessed?

Everything you "see" is an experience.

It looks to me you are just talking about "seeing" something.

That is an experience. Vision is an experience.

You do not see the car. My belief is you see something the brain has created for you to experience.

But that is my belief.

All we really have are experiences and the beliefs we have about them.

And my beliefs could be wrong. They are only beliefs.

 

[fromderinside]

Obviously you need lessons on what is objective, subjective, experience, and all the rest you think is encompassed in your micro view of objective evidence. You need lots of readjusting of views if you're ever going to cope with even the imaginary place you reside.

I'll accept that since most of what we experience is just representations of what we sense and even though it is obvious the stuff we experience is arrived at through internal, mostly neural, processes it is veridical in the sense we can point to something we sense and say "Hey that's a red vase on that mahogany table over there". In that statement we've just made public our perception of an aspect of what we experience in the moment. Now that's not actually objective stuff. But it is verifiable stuff which fits some of the criteria of being from and objective domain.

 

[untermensche]

Obviously you need lessons on what is objective, subjective, experience, and all the rest you think is encompassed in your micro view of objective evidence.

I do not need lessons.

I understand this completely.

For many there is cognitive dissonance.

They have always implicitly believed that there are objects behind experience.

But the truth is all we have are our subjective experiences and what we subjectively make of them.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Due to your triggering of radical skepticism, that too is categorically impossible.

Perhaps you actually think that is an argument.

I do not. It is a fact, not an argument.

 

[steve_bank]

You are redefining words, and you are declaring your self right. f all is subjective, how can anyone's views be correct..unless there are what we call objective points of reference. There is objective evidence, subjective evidence, and a grey area in-between. It plays out in legal dramas.
If two people agree then it is objective as you say? If so if two people believe in alien abductions then that is objective evidence? You are not getting stronger, there are more holes in your arguments, which you refuse to answer to.

Objective and subjective are definitions illustrated by examples. And that is what philosophy in part boils down to. Meaning and thought abstractions based on definitions. Logic is one example.

Can you put your argument in syllogism form? Your argument reduces to all is subjective because I say so with proof or example.

 

[untermensche]

You are redefining words

I am saying how things really are.

We only have subjective experiences of the world.

We have no objective knowledge of the world.

f all is subjective, how can anyone's views be correct.

In science it is prediction of future experiences.

There is objective evidence

There are experiences only.

Most claim there is something objective behind their experiences but nobody really knows.

It is impossible to peak behind experiences.