Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

Not if they are logically binary oppositiions. This ain't such a case.

~~ Paul

You don't subjective/objective is a typical example of a binary opposition?

Then I am afraid you are beyond help. It is the paradigm case.

 

[Tricky]

Not quite. There is such a things as the objective, 3rd-person viewpoint. Is that also "subjective"?

Of course it is. It is from the subjective viewpoint of a third person.

In reality, there can be nothing that is perfectly objective, because it is impossible to see every conceivable viewpoint. The best we can do is strive to be more objective by looking at as many viewpoints as we can.

Objective and subjective are not a binary pair of mathematical values.

 

[DreadNiK]

I'll try one more time. If I give you an example of how to define a problem, then can you try to fit your answer to it as best you can:

1. Problem, for example, Cancer
2. Why is it a problem? - Because it often kills people in a slow and painful way
3. What would be the solution to the problem? - A cure for cancer
4. What would this solution acheive? - No more cancer deaths.

At the moment, I see from you

1. Problem - "How is subjectivity related to objectivity"
2. Why? - "Causes misunderstandings" Please provide evidence/examples.
3. Solution - "A metaphysical one"
4. Solved - "Less misunderstandings"

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You don't subjective/objective is a typical example of a binary opposition?

Then I am afraid you are beyond help. It is the paradigm case.

I certainly don't think it's a good example of binary opposition. One problem is that everyone's objective observations are shaded by their subjective viewpoint. Another problem is that subjective experiences are partially discernible by other people.

If you define subjective to mean exactly "my internal feelings as experienced by me, given our current state of technology," then I will agree that there is a reasonably clear separation from the objective. But that is not how people use the word subjective, and certainly doesn't imply any fundamental barrier to scientific understanding. All it means is that, today, a scientist cannot experience my internal feelings. But I scientist can't experience what it's like to be the weather, either.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Of course it is. It is from the subjective viewpoint of a third person.

This is totally incoherent:

"Is up, down? Yes, up is down from the perspective of up"

I don't think so.

Objective and subjective are not a binary pair of mathematical values.

Neither are up/down, left/right, high/low, black/white, fast/slow, inner/outer......

These are binary or polar oppositions. Do I now have two materialists trying to tell me that subjective/objective isn't another one of these? Seriously?

DreadNik wanted to know what the problem was. The problem is people getting things very confused - like trying to claim that subjective and objective are not opposites. Which is of course, silly.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'll try one more time. If I give you an example of how to define a problem, then can you try to fit your answer to it as best you can:

1. Problem, for example, Cancer
2. Why is it a problem? - Because it often kills people in a slow and painful way
3. What would be the solution to the problem? - A cure for cancer
4. What would this solution acheive? - No more cancer deaths.

At the moment, I see from you

1. Problem - "How is subjectivity related to objectivity"
2. Why? - "Causes misunderstandings" Please provide evidence/examples.
3. Solution - "A metaphysical one"
4. Solved - "Less misunderstandings"

I asked you several posts back whether you were wanting an empirical problem. Why didn't you say "Yes, I am asking you for an empirical problem".

How many times do I have to say that this is not an empirical problem before you stop expecting me to present you with an empirical problem?

 

[DreadNiK]

I would argue you cannot have a 'problem' that is not empirical, and you certainly cannot have an important problem that is not empirical.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I certainly don't think it's a good example of binary opposition. One problem is that everyone's objective observations are shaded by their subjective viewpoint.

You are making this much more complicated that it needs to be. I am not talking about so-called "objective facts", which are only ever objective when they are mathematical and which are a mixture of subjective and objective when they are empirical. I am talking about the very concepts themselves - what it means to be subjective and what it means to be objective.

Another problem is that subjective experiences are partially discernible by other people.

Only indirectly, and once again you are unneccesarily overcomplicating this. The fact that we can infer that other people are experiencing subjective things doesn't make those subjective experiences any more accessible to us as subjective experiences. We can only imagine.

If you define subjective to mean exactly "my internal feelings as experienced by me, given our current state of technology," then I will agree that there is a reasonably clear separation from the objective. But that is not how people use the word subjective, and certainly doesn't imply any fundamental barrier to scientific understanding. All it means is that, today, a scientist cannot experience my internal feelings. But I scientist can't experience what it's like to be the weather, either.

Far too complicated. You cannot see the wood for the trees.

Subjective simply means "from the point of view of mind" or "mind dependent". Objective simply means "NOT from the point of view of the mind" or "mind independent". This is true whether you are talking about the epistemological difference between objective and subjective or the metaphysical difference between them. The examples you give of ambiguous cases are ambiguous precisely because they are cases where something is partially mind-dependent and partially mind-independent. This makes no difference to the definitions of subjective and objective or the fact that they are a binary opposition. A dalmation dog is partly white and partly black but this does not make white any less the opposite of black, does it?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I would argue you cannot have a 'problem' that is not empirical, and you certainly cannot have an important problem that is not empirical.

That is an outright declaration of scientism. If you think scientism is OK, fine. I don't.

You are claiming that the only problems worth solving are empirical. I think that is a disastrous position. I think it disqualifies nearly all of the most important questions that a human being can ask to mere irrelevances.

 

[I less than three logic]

What are these “most important questions”?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Dreadnik,

The reason scientism is bad news is that it means that science is repeating the mistakes of religion. The great things about science is that it is truth-enabling. It enables people to improve their knowledge of how things really are and aren't. The bad thing about many religions and ideologies of one sort or another is that they are truth-inhibiting. They prevent people from improving their knowledge of the truth. But as soon as you turn science into scientism by claiming there is no such thing as a solvable non-empirical problem/question then science has become truth-inhibiting and dogmatic instead of truth-enabling and open-minded. Scientistic fundamentalism devalues and threatens science in the same way that religious fundamentalism devalues and threatens religion.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What are these “most important questions”?

Who am I?
What am I?
Does life have a meaning?
Why does the Universe exist?
How does something come from nothing?
Is there anything like a God?
Why is the world the way it is? Does it have to be this way?
Do I have free will?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It just occured to me why it is that materialists have trouble recognising the binary opposition between subjective and objective. It is another case of importing the invalid inductive inference that materialism is correct into a place it doesn't belong. It goes something like:

Premise (1): Materialism is true (irrelevant invalid inductive inference)
Premise (2): Subjective is to do with minds and Objective is to do with not-minds (which is true).

Step (3): (Based on (1)) Minds are just brain processes.
Premise (4): Brains are objective, physical, not-mind.

Conclusion (Based on (2) and (4)): Subjective things must really be objective. Therefore they aren't binary opposites.

This argument has been trotted out on this board in one form or another hundreds of times. The argument is logically valid, but it unsound because it's first premise is based on a previous invalid inductive argument about materialism being true because science is a great success. The cart has been placed before the horse again. We have "If materialism is true, then subjective/objective is not a binary opposition". So what if subjective/objective really is a binary opposition? Which it is....

 

[hammegk]

I would argue you cannot have a 'problem' that is not empirical, and you certainly cannot have an important problem that is not empirical.

Science us out the answer to "Should we nuke Iran into a smouldering wasteland?".

 

[rocketdodger]

Science us out the answer to "Should we nuke Iran into a smouldering wasteland?".

Well actually the answer to your question, hammy, is the same answer to "can oil and natural resources be extracted safely from a smoldering wasteland?" -- which is a very scientific question. Unfortunately, I think the answer is "no," so the Iranians are safe for now. But they just got lucky, if they lived in Antarctica they would be toast!

 

[nescafe]

Answers to important questions!

What are these “most important questions”?

Who am I?

Yourself, obviously. If you want a better answer, you will have to find it yourself.

What am I?

A reflective collection of thoughts which are an abstraction of collections of patterns of electrical and chemical flux in a huge neural network which controls, is supported, and is a part of a self-contained colony of highly organized and specialized cells which are vastly complex collections of autocatalytic chemicals (and so on and so forth).

Does life have a meaning?

Only what you give it.

Why does the Universe exist?
Why is the world the way it is?
How does something come from nothing?

We don't know, but we have several theories...

Is there anything like a God?

Depends on your definition of God.

Does it have to be this way?

If you don't like it, change it. You may find that some changes are harder to make than others.

Do I have free will?

Only in the sense that there is a gap between your explanations of why you did the things you did and the actual reasons why you did the things you did.

Anyways, now that I have answered some of these questions, do I get a prize?

 

[LW]

We have "If materialism is true, then subjective/objective is not a binary opposition". So what if subjective/objective really is a binary opposition?

Duh, then materialism is not true. Modus tollens. Elementary logic.

Which it is....

You keep asserting that. But the problem is that to prove it you have to assume materialism false.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Duh, then materialism is not true. Modus tollens. Elementary logic.



You keep asserting that. But the problem is that to prove it you have to assume materialism false.

Interesting post. Yes, indirect proof that materialism is false, one of many. But you also claim that subjective and objective are not binary oppositions. On what grounds?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Anyways, now that I have answered some of these questions, do I get a prize?

Did you use science (only) to answer them?

 

[nescafe]

Did you use science (only) to answer them?

No. Any reason I should have?