defining subjectivity and objectivity (1 of 2)

[in2dionysus]

To what point do we believe, consciousness is relative to a point to which only questions can not be understood; realistically we have chosen a interpretation to which understanding is not a realistic term. What is chosen is something that can not be distinguished through relative terms, Reason and truth is not the conquest of instinct. The mind of chaos has been interpreted to show forth a strength that reasoning can not be determined! free spirit can be metaphored towards a reality; un-secure!

[AEVautomatic]

wow...

[pyrrho314]

@AEVautomatic :

1st v 3rd person view of self: watch?v=Ax1R5-_1-pA

Reality Diagram: watch?v=10y8uoaO4xU

Which Model: watch?v=80ZPmMts60U

[ftlqed]

A species is a large set to choose from, from among any subject. An object is all an animal can see. Making it possible to get into binds to hard to escape. I'd put everything in a large masm64 header and call it the problem with, you know, AH's.

[Methyl10]

within our species,we can agree whether something exists or not.We can also measure physical.The fact is,the more people something to be true,the more true it is,even if it's wrong.Quantum physics can show us a subject to act on reality.Since Emanuel Kant,we know that we humans can only recognize our particular reality, like a fly or a fish its reality!Objectivity is what many believe to be because it is consistent with our logic,subjectivity is what one believes.Absolute objectivity is not

[kashchiza]

great

[bigway40]

Family guy will never be the same again

[SelfMinusI]

I'd say the objective is defined by the subjective.. yet the subjective is molded through preconceptions, and an individuals personal degree of logical understanding, intuitive comprehension, as well as life views in general (and particular). I'd say your right in that darkness is the absense of light. Light is a 'reality'. You can't shine darkness into a room. I like the clarity of your presentations.

[emblemOFbeing]

1:06 tell that to those with certain styles of Cotard's syndrom or schizophrenia characterized by

2:00 Husserl in "Experience in Judgment" calls this 'relational contemplation' p. 149-154

You don't even need to read anything beyond the first 10 pages nof Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Idea to get a clear grasp on that fact that subject and object make no sense without each other and your EVIDENCE should indicate to you that you've never 'built' any world nor been out of the world.

[pyrrho314]

at 1:06 I stand by the statement. That we have trouble telling the difference doesn't mean we don't know there are subjecte and objective things... it just means we have trouble with which is which.

[Phi16180]

arguing semantics..have fun.

[pyrrho314]

first off, semantics is fun, secondly... how can you communicate if you don't fix your terms? Communicating with unrelated symbols... have fun!

[Phi16180]

through expression and nuance. you can't expect everyone to know the exact definition of every word. learn how to use words that people understand instead of just calling them stupid or condescendingly trying to teach them.

[pyrrho314]

where do words come from, I'm not calling people stupid.

words are tools we build as well as use... feel free just to use them, but someone has to build them for you then, if you won't.

[Phi16180]

and yeh semantics is fun..to autistics maybe..some of us thrive on chaos.

[pyrrho314]

really, chaos? seems like you want calm waters to me... these issues that disturb the terms at the riverbed of your mind make you anxious, you reflex against stirring that up, you need clear water, you fear confusion and thus, chaos.

or no? perhaps I have you wrong, after all, you did comment in a semantic conversation.

[Phi16180]

ahh you did what most do. you commented about me instead of the topic. and you were way off. you're no mind reader :). and this isn't a semantic conversation. but, again, i don't want to argue the semantics over the word semantics.

and words come from a need to express an idea. nobody needs to build words. they arise out of necessity. language has evolved. a bunch of guys didnt sit down at a table and start naming shit.

[pyrrho314]

you said "some of us thrive on chaos"... introducing "us" as a subject.

you're view of language seems naive to me... words just arise of necessity? And why do different words arise from the same necessity, i.e. same object with different terms in different languages or mutliple terms in the same language?

yes, we create words out of needs, how would that mean we are not to be consciously engaged in that?

[Phi16180]

you're trying to win a debate instead of trying to find a correct, agreeable answer. you sure do like pointless things don't you. I'm done here.

[pyrrho314]

whatever, you said semantics was a waste of time, so I'm debating your assertion. perhaps you think it works better if your assertions are just granted and admitted as facts directly from respect but that's not how it works.

if you want to discuss something, approach as if to discuss... you are the one that came in with this cliche as a point and if you didn't know you invited rebuttal, that's news for you, you did.

take care of your own points and agreeableness first

[Phi16180]

hahaha

[pyrrho314]

so is it important to talk about what you mean when you say something specific or not?

[Phi16180]

its important to express yourself correctly, both saying what you mean, and saying it in a way that your audience can understand. if the message is still lost, chances are you're wasting your time

[pyrrho314]

which is why I spend time defining terms... but anyway, this message is not lost, this video is a year old and pleanty get it... moreover I have a bunch of videos on this so those that get it have plenty of referenc. This is not a classroom, it's not organized so every video on this is clear to every person, and no doubt some people just don't get my way of putting thigns... but some do.

I think there is a lot of work to do continually working on semantics, if you don't think so then fine.

[pyrrho314]

as for the mind reading, I offered a comment on chaos, but then mentioned I could be wrong, after all, my assessment is based on your attitude expressed toward semantics, but clearly you have been in a semantic argument or two, so there is more to the story.

but I admit i can't and won't read your mind... but this is an old debate to me, I've defended the need for semantics many times, and we'll have to keep it blunt and brisk to make another round with it of value to us... imo.

cheers.

[Israe5l]

(objectivity=absolutist) / (subjectivity = relativity)

I wonder when this formula falls apart?

[Israe5l]

Objective statement can only have exceptions. While subjective statement are imbreaded in context.

Exceptions affects the truth value. While context explains. (meaning?)

"contain" or "obtain"?

I guess, you are being a realist about all this. While I am holding up language.

[pyrrho314]

a proper "objective" statement should have no exceptions, exceptions identify contexts where the truth doesn't hold, which makes it not an "objective" truth.

[Israe5l]

objective statement is like a model. if a statement falls out of the Objective one, that means it came to an exception.

I guess anything goes with the subjective statements.

[Israe5l]

Objectivity is truth regardless of context. Subjectivity depends on context.

[pyrrho314]

the knowledge that nothing is not relative to context is relativity.

[Israe5l]

If that is the case, you have an endless context. (You may say, there is a nonlinguistic context. But how would you communicate that?)

Exception and context are different. A statement may have an exception. eg humans have ten fingers would be an exception when one encounters a person with 9 fingers. On the other hand a story why the person unusually has 9 fingers is a context. Context is there to explain. Exception judges what will be good to evaluate the statement.

[pyrrho314]

From one point of view contexts explain, but within relativity, they contain or obtain. Therefore, even without the ability to communicate an idea or context, it does exist, because in a nonverbal, physically measured language there still is reliance on, for example, rest frame, without the ability to makes statements from some abstract idea of total context.

[notonewhit]

The amazing thing about philosophy is that it must always re-examine its posited presuppositions. Study Heidegger's Being and Time: many believe he has overthrown two-thousand years of philosophy that have biased our deepest convictions. He holds the Greeks (esp. Plato) responsible. The point of view represented in your video is one which Heidegger convincingly stands on its head!.. (or, better, puts a man back on his feet, so to speak).

[pyrrho314]

it is hard for me not to ad hom Heidegger... but I'll try... I'm interested to hear what you mean... how you think he stands my idea on its head...

[TJae1]

Nice; they blinded Me w/ science;

 Hey, no off! comments; just lookin' out 4 ya ;)

[xxmonickkkkaxx]

Haha this reminds me of George Orwell's newspeak in 1984, remember when definitions were definite. lol.

[pyrrho314]

yeah, back when truths were dogma instead of theory. of course I remember, we had the Dark Ages then. no thanks.

[xxmonickkkkaxx]

What does assigning a word to something have anything to do with the Dark Ages? You can call a negroid a caucasoid but it doesn't make it so. The meanings of words are being twisted in order to dumb down the population.

[pyrrho314]

you asked if I remember when words were definite. I don't think words ever have been definite, and if they were, you would not see the evolution of language that you do. Word are categories, they are intervals, and further, they have many definitions.

you know what, maybe I over reacted insofar as I assumed you were saying I was talking newspeak, even if you did, no big deal but I will defend my view of the language since that's the point of this.

?

[BrianTheMusicMan]

I don't believe in Objective/Subjective.

[xXAkridXx]

So even if two people are sensing the same thing, they are both having a subjective experience and even if one person affirms with the other what they seeing, even that is taken subjectively. Okay I get that definition.

So subjective experiences and ideas are personal, and objective can only be established through some kind of peer review process?

[pyrrho314]

yes, what we call and use as objective is merely well triangulated, confirmed true in many subjective frames of reference. This process does well as approximating objective reality (betting some cases than others... i.e. better at getting objective physical measurements, worse in terms of finding moral truths)... but even with moral truths it works well enough, and gets better with practice.

[pyrrho314]

The truths so discovered are practically valuable, and work as well as objective truths would (better imo, as they are less rigid), but are not actually objective, but just sophisticated subjective constructions. We can get away ignoring the difference in a lot of problems, but in the really detailed epistemological questions, which come up in politics and many real world issues, it makes a difference.

[xXAkridXx]

This is exactly what I have been trying to explain to many others on more than one occasion. I tried to explain that Objective morality is something we establish based on we subjectively know.

[mickoooo123]

in regards to objectivity,what complicates matters is whether or not you consider sensory data to be subjective.If you do,then for human beings,absolute objectivity is impossible.You would need to be God to be sure of yourself,and even then...............

[pyrrho314]

well put and I agree. Sense infomration is subjective, and objectivity is just a model made of subjective elements.

[mickoooo123]

I've got a question a little off topic but pertaining to that sky colour example.Can somethings true colours ever be determined if its colouring depends on light and the specifics of a given organisms eye?Do things have colour?I assume there must be some alteration,otherwise would light not produce the same effect regardless of what it was shone upon?

[pyrrho314]

it seems pretty clear objects do not have color, they have physical properties that reflect/absorb light, but that is not color. Color itself is in the animal mind, a way to comprehend light.

[mickoooo123]

Ok.A follow on question.I noticed you referenced that dogs see the sky as a shade of grey,implying that different species see different colours.My question is along the lines of defensive colouring in animals/insects etc.If such a term is true it implies that relatively primitive lifeforms were somehow aware of colours their predators would be wary of,and not only that,were able to evolve into those colours even though colour is merely light.

[pyrrho314]

well, theoretically that can happen with random trial and error (in that case mutation)... the redder bugs get eaten less, etc...

[mickoooo123]

So in that case evolution is not survival of the fittest,but survival of whomever has the dumber natural predator?

In the case of a certain type of butterfly,something would have to be "aware" of the benefits of having a pattern on its wings that will mimic a pair of eyes when exposed to light in order for it to evolve into a general feature.

[pyrrho314]

it's not "fit" absolutely, yes, it's fit to the environment, fit like a key fits.

[EverettsVLOG]

good, careful, philosophy

[witzkeyman]

objectivity means it can be measured (the poster behind you says Hate Free) subjectivity can't. it's based on feelings and emotions (the poster behind you is boring). you make it more complex then it is.

[pyrrho314]

The models/ideas we have of objectivity are high level abstractions above subjectivity.

If you refuse to consider what is underneath those idea, and that model, then what you say is sensible. But if you question how the model is created, as you must if you want to improve it beyond a certain limit... then you must face that it's built on subjective input (sense data). Since all measurement is done with sense perceptions, obviously you can measure subjective experiences.

[witzkeyman]

obviously you can measure subjective experiences.

No YOU CAN't

[pyrrho314]

this is semantic I think. when I measure my foot with a ruler, don't I use my perception? Isn't my perception subjective.

But even for more purely subjective experiences, like "like"... we can compare and see one as greater than the other. For example, I think my "like" for artichoke is greater than my "like" for raw fish. Am I wrong? In what way is that not a measurement?

[witzkeyman]

like is subjective. objective is fact for everyone, and not just a select few. there are clouds in the sky is objective. the sky is beautiful is subjective.

[pyrrho314]

No facts are fact for everyone. All facts are true in a given reference frame. We share many frames, and that is how we share many fact (e.g. "we all need oxygen to survive")... but still, no fact is true for "everyone" unless by everyone you mean "ones" in a common frame of reference. All facts are subjective on some level.

my point of factual statements of objective reality still being subjective is that it is really made from "I see clouds", a subjective assertion.

[pyrrho314]

that all facts are true with respect to a particular frame of reference is physical relativity... by which there is no such thing even as "simultaneous events"... in some frames they will be simultaneous, in others, they will not be. You can approximate something like objective fact, but to have a truly objective fact you would have to have a reference frame for the whole universe, which is (1) out of our reach and (2) appears to be physically impossible.

[pyrrho314]

one final thing... the distinction you offer is familiar and solid, I accept it, but as the distinction between fact and opinion that we teach school children. It's fine, but when we look at what our ideas are made of, how we come to believe in a given fact, all the pieces are subjective. So with that being the case, how do subjective parts which are true only for an individual, suddenly add together to make objective facts true for all? that's the question.

[pyrrho314]

another example for this: "The sky is blue"... is that objective or subjective?

[witzkeyman]

objective, unless one is colorblind. the question is, "Is the sky blue a fact?".

[pyrrho314]

"unless" is a qualification not allowed to universals, the truth changes based on personal frame of reference. But even in the non-colorblind, the sky is not blue, for one, the sky is not an object, you look through and atmosphere to space, but are saturated with blue light in day. The light is in fact of a given wavelength and assigned blue by our minds, a shade of grey for dogs, and so on. The color blue is what HAPPENS to us when we look at the sky, it is not actually a quality of the sky.

[pyrrho314]

another point using your clouds example... clouds are visible water vapor, and they are visible because of the wavelengths of light we see... if we had infrared vision, we could see stars right through the clouds... are there then clouds? Seems like at the least you have to start talking about water vapor in the air, and the definitions you use will similarly break down into subjective elements based on our senses... we detect relationships between phenomenon and us, a subjective process.

[Canteatpancakes]

Would it be accurate to say, " all that can be measured is material? "

I'm wondering because I used that as my definition of material recently and now you have me second guessing my self. :)

[pyrrho314]

I think that definition holds.

[Jihunn]

IRISH COEFFEEEE

[pyrrho314]

no, it's not, the second part, which I will upload (not at the right computer at the moment) is actually just a bit redundant of a continuation (i.e. I just happened to talk longer... it could have all been 10 minutes)... but I will go on to that.

[gratex]

Thanks for defining it in valid terms :)

[angryislander56]

Great video.Very clear.

Even for the old and confused:)

[BellaTheHappyLoser]

there is a satan man, the satan I believe in and that is gonna destroy us, its called - SEMANTICS!

[CousinoMacul]

I'm a huge stickler for semantics. I guess that makes me a Satan worshiper.  :-)

[angryislander56]

Bella doesn't like definitions of any kind.

[BellaTheHappyLoser]

no, I dont.

[pyrrho314]

I don't understand why... better to let a term have 100 definitions than none... doesn't that solve the satanic problems?

[BellaTheHappyLoser]

I dont believe in definitions, I like when you can explore words and that word like ''dick'' can have lot of meanings :)

only I hate when semantics become an obstacle in ''normal'' conversation thats all..

for example I am telling you: pyro, you know i have been thinking - and then you go - bella define thinking, i cant talk like that... and then i go, then you... mess.

[pyrrho314]

the definitions are just like bread crumbs you leave along the way as you explore... if you explore a dead end, you can go back. They are also like stones you pick up along your walks, you can build things from them.

that's the skeptical approach to knowledge, finding a definition does not stop you from keeping to seek and reflect.

[akaso405]

That was a great explanation and reconciliation of subjective existence and objectivism, i.e., the effort to create an objective model. Watching your videos has actually inspired me to pick up some books on philosophy and read them in my spare time. Well, I guess I just want to say thanks for all the effort you've put into your videos.