Is subjectivity just a matter of context?

[bennyboy]

So, what is objectively real about the chair? Our experience of it as a solid object or the fact that it's mostly empty space?

Our definition of 'solid' describes a state of matter in which the arrangement of atoms/molecules are structurally rigid. It is not contingent upon density. So, there is no conflict here.

Maybe in chemistry or physics, that's true. But when I look at my desk, I see it as smooth. I perceive the flatness of its surface as a single, continuous form. Redefining flatness to refer to the standard deviation of particles from a virtual plane or whatever doesn't SOLVE this duality in thinking-- it brings it to the fore. Clearly, your definition of "solid" begs the question: it demands that all perceptions be redefined to conform with the "objective reality" of the physical monist model-- and then goes on to show that all reality conforms with the physical monist model!

This is cheating. If we are talking about the relationship between subjective and objective realities, then you must accept experiences as they are experienced.

[Ryantology]

Maybe in chemistry or physics, that's true. But when I look at my desk, I see it as smooth. I perceive the flatness of its surface as a single, continuous form. Redefining flatness to refer to the standard deviation of particles from a virtual plane or whatever doesn't SOLVE this duality in thinking-- it brings it to the fore. Clearly, your definition of "solid" begs the question: it demands that all perceptions be redefined to conform with the "objective reality" of the physical monist model-- and then goes on to show that all reality conforms with the physical monist model!

This is cheating. If we are talking about the relationship between subjective and objective realities, then you must accept experiences as they are experienced.

By volume, many solid things are mostly empty space even on our level of experience. Buildings, cars, aircraft carriers. The fact that they are mostly empty things doesn't make them not solid to our perception. I'm not trying to redefine what solid means, but rather point out that even our colloquial understanding of solidity allows for a lot of wiggle room.

Take two steel balls, only one is hollow and one is not. Even to our everyday understanding, they are still both very solid objects, even though one may be more gas than solid, by volume.

What I'm saying is, your desk is thick and sturdy to our perspective, mostly empty on the atomic scale, yet solid on both levels. I'm not attempting to redefine anything. Something which isn't in the proper atomic configuration to produce a solid state is something we probably wouldn't identify as solid on our own level, unless we were using the term in a somewhat more poetic sense, to describe something that isn't actually solid at all, but shares characteristics which evoke solidity (such as, "solid wall of sound").

[Confused Ape]

[Coffee Jesus]

[Coffee Jesus]

That post was stupid!

We can't perceive electrons through electron microscopes, but we can perceive individual atoms through them. I guess I wasn't thinking about that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To the OP, is your awareness of pain real? How you answer that sets the course.

[Coffee Jesus]

My awareness of pain is real, and the pain itself is real. Per my definition of "subjectivity" as a form of context-dependence, mental experiences are not subjective. Using "subjective" to mean "of the mind" appears to be the only accepted usage that is an exception. All other uses denote some sort of context-dependence for the meanings of statements. For example, "Men are sexy" denotes the speaker's personal perception of men, so its meaning and its truth or falsity depend on who the speaker is. However, it is objectively true that some people find men sexy, so the statement is objectively true for some people, and objectively false for others.

[Confused Ape]

[Coffee Jesus]

"Something is happening in the brains of people who feel disembodied presences" is objectively true.

"Infrasound and magnetic fields cause some brains to produce the feeling of disembodied presences." This seems to be objectively true going by research so far.

So, we could say that "Feeling disembodied presences is an objectively real phenomenon."

If you think a magnetic field counts as a "disembodied presence", then I guess you could say that.

My own experience at Wigmore Castle felt as real as any other experience so it was subjectively real. From the neuroscience point of view I experienced an objectively real phenomenon.

The experience was real. The statement of having that experience is a true statement when you're the one making it.

[Confused Ape]

If you think a magnetic field counts as a "disembodied presence", then I guess you could say that.

I didn't say anything about a magnetic field counting as a disembodied presence.

"Infrasound and magnetic fields cause some brains to produce the feeling of disembodied presences."

Eating magic mushrooms causes brains to produce hallucinations but the mushrooms themselves aren't hallucinations.