(March 4, 2017 at 6:35 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 4, 2017 at 3:02 am)Jesster Wrote: This is not quantum mechanics, which is something I can't even begin to make any educated assertions about and I doubt you can either. This is a plain logical negation argument, which you are blatantly violating. Do you understand the basis of logic?

I don't care too much which side of the subjective/objective argument you are going for (although I have my own opinion about that). Just at least pick one.

I drink hot chocolate.  I experience what the hot chocolate is like.  My brain is doing stuff, which is physical stuff, and the physical process can (to a degree) be observed-- there's brain activity happening.  So it's both subjective and objective.

Those are two separate things you are equating. Perceptions are just electrical impulses in your brain based on what your body and brain can detect. Your personal perception of the hot chocolate and the actual object of the hot chocolate are not the same thing. The color red as a property of an object is not affected in any way by a blind man's inability to see it

(March 4, 2017 at 1:36 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 4, 2017 at 6:35 am)bennyboy Wrote: I drink hot chocolate.  I experience what the hot chocolate is like.  My brain is doing stuff, which is physical stuff, and the physical process can (to a degree) be observed-- there's brain activity happening.  So it's both subjective and objective.

Those are two separate things you are equating. Perceptions are just electrical impulses in your brain based on what your body and brain can detect. Your personal perception of the hot chocolate and the actual object of the hot chocolate are not the same thing. The color red as a property of an object is not affected in any way by a blind man's inability to see it

Both the chocolate and the brain function are objective.  They can both be observed, at least in theory.  What part of it do you claim is subjective-but-not-objective?

(March 4, 2017 at 11:03 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Both the chocolate and the brain function are objective.  They can both be observed, at least in theory.  What part of it do you claim is subjective-but-not-objective?

The fact that the brain is functioning is objective. The electrical impulses can potentially be measured and others can piece that data together. Nobody can experience your brain function first-hand in the way that you do except for you, though. That part is subjective. Those are also two separate things.

Have you tried opening a dictionary lately?

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

(March 4, 2017 at 11:15 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 4, 2017 at 11:03 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Both the chocolate and the brain function are objective.  They can both be observed, at least in theory.  What part of it do you claim is subjective-but-not-objective?

The fact that the brain is functioning is objective. The electrical impulses can potentially be measured and others can piece that data together. Nobody can experience your brain function first-hand in the way that you do except for you, though. That part is subjective. Those are also two separate things.

Have you tried opening a dictionary lately?

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

This is fun because I'm usually on your side of this argument.  The word you're looking for is "a correlate to a thing is not the thing."

The experience of ideas is certainly subjective and not objective.  However, that's from inside the system.  For anyone outside you, everything you think and do is 100% objective.  They can see your facial movements, watch your brain blood flow in an fMRI, stick electrodes on your head and so on.

So are you arguing that a moral system is only an idea to be experienced subjectively, and not more than that?

(March 4, 2017 at 11:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: So are you arguing that a moral system is only an idea to be experienced subjectively, and not more than that?

No, I'm explaining to you how something cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time and what the difference is between the two terms. I haven't made an argument here about which I think morality falls under (though I have in other threads).

If you want to know, I see morality as subjective. I am perfectly fine with others making the opposing argument. At least there is some sense to that. I wasn't going to stick my nose into this thread until it drifted into arguments for both at the same time.

(March 4, 2017 at 11:51 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 4, 2017 at 11:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: So are you arguing that a moral system is only an idea to be experienced subjectively, and not more than that?

No, I'm explaining to you how something cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time and what the difference is between the two terms. I haven't made an argument here about which I think morality falls under (though I have in other threads).

Subject means "viewer" and object means "that which is viewed."  Obviously, in our universe, all viewers are also able to be viewed, unless you are saying that there's an ineffable soul or something like that.

It is only in one particular subject-object relationship that you can claim unique identity in the way that you are.  You can say, "I'm  not aware of my own brain function, so my ideas are purely subjective. . . to me."  But your ideas are purely objective to anybody else.

See?  It's a matter of perspective, not of the "real truth."

(March 4, 2017 at 11:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Subject means "viewer" and object means "that which is viewed."  Obviously, in our universe, all viewers are also able to be viewed, unless you are saying that there's an ineffable soul or something like that.

It is only in one particular subject-object relationship that you can claim unique identity in the way that you are.  You can say, "I'm  not aware of my own brain function, so my ideas are purely subjective. . . to me."  But your ideas are purely objective to anybody else.

See?  It's a matter of perspective, not of the "real truth."

You started out well with the definitions of subject and object. However, there is one objective reality, period. It can be perceived in different ways, but those perceptions don't change the reality. You are still trying to conflate reality and the perception of reality one may have.

*sigh* This has drifted so far off the topic of the thread, and I know I am partly to blame. This should be a discussion about morality. I really hate being in the philosophy section with you, benny.

(March 5, 2017 at 12:07 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 4, 2017 at 11:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Subject means "viewer" and object means "that which is viewed."  Obviously, in our universe, all viewers are also able to be viewed, unless you are saying that there's an ineffable soul or something like that.

It is only in one particular subject-object relationship that you can claim unique identity in the way that you are.  You can say, "I'm  not aware of my own brain function, so my ideas are purely subjective. . . to me."  But your ideas are purely objective to anybody else.

See?  It's a matter of perspective, not of the "real truth."

You started out well with the definitions of subject and object. However, there is one objective reality, period. It can be perceived in different ways, but those perceptions don't change the reality. You are still trying to conflate reality and the perception of reality one may have.

*sigh* This has drifted so far off the topic of the thread, and I know I am partly to blame. This should be a discussion about morality. I really hate being in the philosophy section with you, benny.

"There is one objective reality, period."  What does that mean, and why are you so sure that the number is not zero, two, or infinity?

As for conflating reality and the perception of reality-- that perception is ALSO part of objective reality, unless you posit more than one reality-- one for experience and one for objective reality.  Are you saying that mind and matter exist in separate realities?


Not sure why you're *sigh*-ing about me doing philosophy in the philosophy section.  You can hate it if you like, that's up to you.

Yeah, I'm done with your insistence on over-complicating every little thing with pseudoscience and woo. Have fun with this one. I think you're way off the mark, especially with your twisting of very basic definitions, but I am remembering very clearly now why I shouldn't bother arguing with you. I don't have the patience for this. If you can't pick between "A" and "not A" by now, I'm out.

(March 5, 2017 at 12:49 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 5, 2017 at 12:07 am)Jesster Wrote: You started out well with the definitions of subject and object. However, there is one objective reality, period. It can be perceived in different ways, but those perceptions don't change the reality. You are still trying to conflate reality and the perception of reality one may have.

*sigh* This has drifted so far off the topic of the thread, and I know I am partly to blame. This should be a discussion about morality. I really hate being in the philosophy section with you, benny.

"There is one objective reality, period."  What does that mean, and why are you so sure that the number is not zero, two, or infinity?

As for conflating reality and the perception of reality-- that perception is ALSO part of objective reality, unless you posit more than one reality-- one for experience and one for objective reality.  Are you saying that mind and matter exist in separate realities?


Not sure why you're *sigh*-ing about me doing philosophy in the philosophy section.  You can hate it if you like, that's up to you.

You are looking at the difference between subjectivity and objectively from a false standpoint, it is about dependency of propositions, what we think of as truths. 
If morality is subjective, it is dependent upon personal conception, if morality is objective, it is independent of personal conception and would still be true even if humans and their conceptions went extinct.