objectivity is a subset of subjectivity 2 of 2

slow but more or less on topic

-----

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• philosophy
• skepticism
• relativism
• objectivity
• subjectivity

[2bsirius]

OMG you ACTUALLY waded through the convolution of my comment...? Dragging baggage is my advocation...Btw if objective fails...I'm at a complete loss to know what takes its place...Hence the objective cargo which I doggedly drag...Jettisoning it without knowing what can take its place is insane and silly and facile...Sorry...But it's what I think! Subjectively speaking, of course.

[2bsirius]

The fact that you two can do this is fascinating...Thanks for thinking...I don't post that comment very often...When I do I really mean it...THANKS

[skeptic421]

there are things that alter our subjective reality which we do not have control over, reassuring that there IS something "out there" (unpercieved) which we interact with. Our perception is an interpretation of the unpercieved. so in a way, it IS perceived, just not directly. the mind is the medial.

[skeptic421]

agreed, our perceived reality is only a fraction of the external world, a frequency among an infinite number of frequencies. to say that there is only one frequency (the one we perceive) would be fallacious.

[pyrrho314]

consider... if you do as I have and see that the so called "objective facts" are, of course, subjective facts subjected to our highest standards (of self-consistency and cross-consistency), that does not mean we have dream power over the world, because there are certain perceptions we do not have dream power over. These high-quality perceptions we associate with fact. IOW, why think we have power over all subjective ideas, as if we control ourselves that well anyay.

[pyrrho314]

I say that epistemelogically, and from our point of view, the thing we call "objectivity" is a subjective model OF this external world. That's our situation.

We need a way to say, but I think something really is out there... fine, say "something is external" and let us press on to define external in terms of internal subjective perceptions. Instead, we characterized it as more than just external, but as a single environment with a single state. That's where we went too far.

[pyrrho314]

I read it but it's not tiresome.

I generally view attempts to use "qualia" as a fundamental in language are revivals of some sort of the tratitional idea of qualia adhering to the thing itself... the BLUE is in the blue ball.

I don't know why one would drag along so much baggage as that term has unless trying to drag the baggage, that is, drag objectivity past the threshold of its failure.

[2bsirius]

I disagree with your assertion that qualia implies that it necessarily resides WITHIN the object [i.e. reality]- Don't think Chalmers [et. al.] are making that claim.

There is an interesting recent entry on my favorite consciousness blog, Consciousentities, about this. I can't really put a lot of detail here. I'd like to make a vid about it...BUT I'm too lazy...Typing is so much easier. and I get to talk to myself and it helps me think. I just hope no one actually reads my tiresome verbiage;)

[skeptic421]

the theory im pointing out is just one of many, all im saying is it has a reassuring nature of ending the paradox.

this is why it is so controversial.

there's a counter argument for everything.

[skeptic421]

objects interact and behave relativistically, yet at the quantum level electrons react differently by the influence of an observer. so the relativistic nature of our subjective reality is determined by the mind.

i believe there is a framework on which the mind is operating on, not perception but the thing determining perception. that "thing" is the unperceived reality.