In philosophy, subjective specifically means relating to an object as it exists in the mind, as opposed to the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself).
My bike puncture 'exists in my mind' in the sense that I'm thinking about it. A puncture also, alas, exists in reality. So now I've got two punctures. Damn. This philosophy makes no sense.
Is there nothing other than my mind that a perception relies upon? If I decide to take a trip to England, does the material stuff I take to be England occur in the field of my perception because I'm actually a hallucinating Boltzmann brain floating in some outerspace? Is there then no concept of cause and effect with respect to what could be considered separate from me? How could perceptions be their own cause?
If all perception relies on my mind, how could there also be the possibility of a thing-in-itself, as if something outside of it was a cause?
Is there a good reason, if not due to an instersubjective fact, that the mind does not encompass all things? Is there only one mind? If so, whose mind is it? It must be mine... unless my mind is also your mind and there is no difference between the two.
Our loosy goosey language use is gonna get us in trouble from those who might know better. Careful you don't contradict yourself, or inconsistently/incorrectly define things with respect to intersubjective standards and what you are arguing.
introbertSeptember 05, 2022 at 19:56#7363600 likes
I agree with your sentiment. That is a fundamental irony that even purely objective truths are subjective. It is an irony that becomes more pronounced as one's objective knowledge produces results opposite of what one expects. In light of that, I nevertheless believe that there are objective truths, even though the whole truth escapes us leaving us inevitably surprised.
universenessSeptember 05, 2022 at 20:17#7363690 likes
'I think therefore I am', a subjective declaration by Descartes.
Yeah? I am not academically qualified in philosophy, Computing Science is my expertise but I always considered descartes statement to be presented as a universal truth or an objective truth about sentient existence. I thought it was solipsism that challenged this as it suggested that this might prove to a person that they exist but it does not prove that anyone else exists. I have always considered solipsism to be nonsense but If academic philosophy insists that 'I think therefore I am,' is subjective then I don't really have the quals to argue.
Reply to Banno
Coherence and correspondance "theories of truth" can be applied within a subjective framework.
For example, language is a thought up system of symbols. It doesn't rely on objective rules, but on agrees upon "subjective" or mads up rules, if you will. (At least the grammar rules)
When two or more people agree on made up rules, they become sort of objectified in a sense. Even though the subjects are free to abandon the rules if they want. Its just they don't agree on a shared system they will have a hard time communicating.
The axioms of thought can also apply.
For example, even if there is only my mind...I still can't both think about an elephant and not think of an elephant at the same time.
I can imagine up all kinds of worlds, but those worlds will be grounded in some sense in the axioms of thought, at least, in addition to other rules I could imagine up.
'I think therefore I am', a subjective declaration by Descartes.
Was not the point of the declaration to remark upon how the experience is given as fact? An aspect of the given reality no more or less 'real' than the other stuff we are stuck with?
Reply to Banno
Is it not a fact that Paris is spelled (in English) P.a.r.i.s?
And then isn't it a fact because English speakers by and large agree how to spell it?
If everyone started to spell Paris P.a.r.e.s then that would be the new spelling, while P.a.r.i.s would be considered an archaic spelling.
If Idealism is true, something like the distance of the sun from the Earth would be a fact about our shared subjective reality. That subjective reality is still as it is, even if I have a thought which doesn't correspond with it.
If everything is thought forms (another way of saying subjective) then objective facts are facts about objectified thought forms.
But objective facts are not ultimate truths.
Agent SmithSeptember 06, 2022 at 08:05#7365490 likes
The MĂĽnchhausen Trilemma takes care of Descartes' cogito in my humble opinion. I ain't sure though, I'm a skeptic, comes with the territory or thereabouts.
universenessSeptember 06, 2022 at 08:26#7365530 likes
.I still can't both think about an elephant and not think of an elephant at the same time.
It depends on how true 'superposition' is. In the many words theory you can think of an elephant and not think about it at the same time, just not in the same universe.
This question was asked on Quora: How is it possible for atoms to be at 2 different places at the same time according to quantum mechanics?
The answer given by Michael Price (MSc in quantum field theory) was:
[b]Not just two places, but an infinite number of places. All particles or objects (from electrons to elephants to galaxies) have their position (and state) given by a probability amplitude - called the wave function - which you can use to calculate the probability of the object being at some point (or in some state) if you look. After you look the wave function needs adjusting (wave function collapse) to reflect the fact of where you saw the object. Between observations the wave function evolves according to a wave equation, the nature of which is quite well known in most situations. Wave function collapse occurs either when a particle or object encounters decoherence (usually some form of environmental heat) or when someone (big, hot, squishy, decoherent things like us) observes it.
In the time between one collapse and the next, evolving according to a wave equation (as mentioned), the particle exists in more than one position or state. The interpretation of this is debated, there is no consensus. I go with the many worlds interpretation, but take your pick![/b]
The answer given by the very popular Viktor T. Toth (IT pro, part-time physicist) was:
[b]It is not.
The moment you imagine that atom as a miniature cannonball that is in two places at once, you lost the game: you are failing to understand quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics does not say that the atom is in two places at once. What quantum mechanics says is that the atom has no classically defined position at all between measurements. Its position, rather than being represented by a set of numbers (as in classical mechanics, where the position would be a set of coordinates), is represented instead by the so-called position operator. Unlike the numbers, the position operator does not tell us where the atom is. The atom is neither here nor there, nor anywhere else. The position operator tells us how likely it is that we find the atom at a particular place, if we look. It does not tell us where the atom is.
But when you actually look and find the atom somewhere, the atom is in exactly one place: the place where you found it. It is never in two places at once. However, most of the time (that is, always when you are not looking) it is in no place at all, in a classical sense, as it has no well-defined position.
(And just to be clear, when I somewhat whimsically say, “when you are not looking”, I don’t really mean that a human or a cat has to look at the atom for it to have a position. No, the atom simply has to interact with a macroscopic object or instrument, one that consists of a very large number of particles such that any quantum behaviour is averaged out and it behaves classically.)[/b]
Reply to universeness
Depends on what we mean.
When I say "not think about an elephant" do I mean in any universe or just this one. I would think I am only talking about this me. Not mes in other universes.
Thanks for QM explanations. I'm inspired to watch some YT videos on the subject. Confusing stuff!
universenessSeptember 06, 2022 at 08:55#7365670 likes
The MĂĽnchhausen Trilemma takes care of Descartes' cogito in my humble opinion. I ain't sure though, I'm a skeptic, comes with the territory or thereabouts.
Google reports:
In epistemology, the MĂĽnchhausen trilemma, also commonly known as the Agrippan trilemma, is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics, without appealing to accepted assumptions. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The MĂĽnchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof:
The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.
Ok but do you think the speed of light in a vacuum, or the mass of an electron is the same for every measured electron are absolute, universal FACTS and are TRUE facts. Such measurements can always be improved in accuracy but if they are not absolute truths, they are probably the closest we are every going to get to such.
Agent SmithSeptember 06, 2022 at 08:59#7365680 likes
Depends on what we mean.
When I say "not think about an elephant" do I mean in any universe or just this one. I would think I am only talking about this me. Not mes in other universes.
I agree, and it also depends on whether or not all the superpositions of you are all connected as you.
They are not clones of you or separable from you they are all physically you, just in different states and positions in a multiverse. I am not convinced by the many worlds theory, I am more attracted to cyclical universe theories such as the Penrose bounce.
universenessSeptember 06, 2022 at 09:20#7365750 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
:up: No worries. If the many worlds theory is true then you have already answered me in every way possible, superpositionally speaking of course. which must include an absolutely true answer as well, so the many worlds theory at least suggests that absolute truths must be possible within the many worlds reference frame.
Agent SmithSeptember 06, 2022 at 09:28#7365780 likes
You hit the nail on the head when you said skepticism is self-refuting - to argue that no argument is good enough is indeed to shoot oneself. Is it a murder-suicide though?
universenessSeptember 06, 2022 at 09:43#7365810 likes
You hit the nail on the head when you said skepticism is self-refuting
I don't recall ever typing the phrase 'skepticism is self-refuting,' If I did then I copied it from somewhere as it's seems greater than my skills as a wordsmith could muster. I am a great fan of skepticism but I think its true that whenever humans push the limits of propositional logic, they just seem to encounter paradox or self-refuting logic, quite quickly. Perhaps the knowledge that lies beyond that particular sealed door will remain off limits to the human race for some time yet. We just cant figure out how to open that door yet but......one day......
Tom StormSeptember 06, 2022 at 11:36#7366030 likes
I don't recall ever typing the phrase 'skepticism is self-refuting,' If I did then I copied it from somewhere as it's seems greater than my skills as a wordsmith could muster.
Skepticism is not self-refuting - absolute or global skepticism is self-refuting and probably psychologically impossible. More conventional skepticism is how science generally works. It shouldn't be confused with cynicism or denialism. For a modern skeptic a claim may not be provisionally accepted until there's evidentiary warrant or it's supported by sound reasoning.
universenessSeptember 06, 2022 at 12:24#7366250 likes
Reply to Tom Storm
As I already typed Tom, I have no recollection of every typing the phrase, 'skepticism is self-refuting.'
I also did not type that I agreed with it. I merely typed that my skills as a wordsmith are rarely able to put words together in such an aesthetically pleasing way or at least aesthetically pleasing to me.
I agree with your application of skepticism towards any scientific theory, without sufficient empirical evidence or sound reasoning to support it. That would be my approach as well.
Deleted UserSeptember 06, 2022 at 14:23#7366530 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserSeptember 06, 2022 at 14:26#7366550 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserSeptember 06, 2022 at 14:33#7366570 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
universenessSeptember 06, 2022 at 18:15#7367140 likes
My subjective statement: ‘Philosophy 101’ was simply an indication of memory functioning. That is, ‘I think therefore I am’ was a trip back in time to Philosophy 101, the classroom, the professor in living color. It was not: ‘academic philosophy [insisting] that 'I think therefore I am,' is subjective…’
:up: ok.
Tom StormSeptember 06, 2022 at 19:30#7367340 likes
So, what are debates about? Seems like: my philosophy is better than your philosophy.
What do you think?
When it gets to debates or arguments between members then often it seems to boil down to 'my reading of the text/s is more nuanced (or more useful) than yours.' With texts all we have are readings, interpretations and re-interpretations.
There are clearly communities of intersubjective thought which share presuppositions and values. Is this a problem for philosophy? Are you looking for a meta-narrative (an account of truth or reality) which will subsume all other thinking?
180 ProofSeptember 07, 2022 at 01:58#7368100 likes
Reply to ArielAssante Philosophy consists mostly of normative principles (i.e. prescriptions), suppositions (i.e. thought-experiments), evaluations (i.e. interpretations of statements), aporia and other non-propositional expressions ... which are no more "subjective" than e.g. mathematical theorems or Shakespearean tragedies which are also "only in the mind".
Skepticism is not self-refuting - absolute or global skepticism is self-refuting and probably psychologically impossible. More conventional skepticism is how science generally works.
But all that you have said here is that what you choose to believe is down to you.
Well, what I've said isn't something we aren't already familiar with (re novacula occami + other qualities (seemingly) unrelated to truth such as beauty, elegance vis-Ă -vis the scientific method).
Agent SmithSeptember 07, 2022 at 04:14#7368330 likes
De gustibus non est disputandum vs. the PSR.
Deleted UserSeptember 07, 2022 at 13:03#7369240 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Tom StormSeptember 07, 2022 at 19:32#7370650 likes
This is completely subjective and selfish but that does not mean others may not benefit. My own journey has been informed by many. Some IÂ’ve never met or even seen. In fact, Tom, your question has been very helpful. Thank you.
How do you fell your subjective journey has been helpful to others? Has it changed you in a way that others my benefit?
Deleted UserSeptember 07, 2022 at 21:12#7371040 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Tom StormSeptember 07, 2022 at 21:45#7371150 likes
When it gets to debates or arguments between members then often it seems to boil down to 'my reading of the text/s is more nuanced (or more useful) than yours.' With texts all we have are readings, interpretations and re-interpretations.
What bit is missing for you? I'm simply reporting on how these debates strike me.
Comments (43)
My bike puncture 'exists in my mind' in the sense that I'm thinking about it. A puncture also, alas, exists in reality. So now I've got two punctures. Damn. This philosophy makes no sense.
The standard by which I judge a philosophy is whether or not it is useful for a particular purpose in a particular situation.
Quoting ArielAssante
Is there nothing other than my mind that a perception relies upon? If I decide to take a trip to England, does the material stuff I take to be England occur in the field of my perception because I'm actually a hallucinating Boltzmann brain floating in some outerspace? Is there then no concept of cause and effect with respect to what could be considered separate from me? How could perceptions be their own cause?
If all perception relies on my mind, how could there also be the possibility of a thing-in-itself, as if something outside of it was a cause?
Is there a good reason, if not due to an instersubjective fact, that the mind does not encompass all things? Is there only one mind? If so, whose mind is it? It must be mine... unless my mind is also your mind and there is no difference between the two.
Where is my mind?
Our loosy goosey language use is gonna get us in trouble from those who might know better. Careful you don't contradict yourself, or inconsistently/incorrectly define things with respect to intersubjective standards and what you are arguing.
Yeah? I am not academically qualified in philosophy, Computing Science is my expertise but I always considered descartes statement to be presented as a universal truth or an objective truth about sentient existence. I thought it was solipsism that challenged this as it suggested that this might prove to a person that they exist but it does not prove that anyone else exists. I have always considered solipsism to be nonsense but If academic philosophy insists that 'I think therefore I am,' is subjective then I don't really have the quals to argue.
It follows that if you think everything is subjective, you shouldn't bother posting here.
So, to all subjectivists, so long, and enjoy doing something else.
Coherence and correspondance "theories of truth" can be applied within a subjective framework.
For example, language is a thought up system of symbols. It doesn't rely on objective rules, but on agrees upon "subjective" or mads up rules, if you will. (At least the grammar rules)
When two or more people agree on made up rules, they become sort of objectified in a sense. Even though the subjects are free to abandon the rules if they want. Its just they don't agree on a shared system they will have a hard time communicating.
The axioms of thought can also apply.
For example, even if there is only my mind...I still can't both think about an elephant and not think of an elephant at the same time.
I can imagine up all kinds of worlds, but those worlds will be grounded in some sense in the axioms of thought, at least, in addition to other rules I could imagine up.
Does that make any sense?
Was not the point of the declaration to remark upon how the experience is given as fact? An aspect of the given reality no more or less 'real' than the other stuff we are stuck with?
That bit. I'm of the opinion that the distinction between subjective and objective, as set out here, cannot be made coherent.
Is it not a fact that Paris is spelled (in English) P.a.r.i.s?
And then isn't it a fact because English speakers by and large agree how to spell it?
If everyone started to spell Paris P.a.r.e.s then that would be the new spelling, while P.a.r.i.s would be considered an archaic spelling.
If Idealism is true, something like the distance of the sun from the Earth would be a fact about our shared subjective reality. That subjective reality is still as it is, even if I have a thought which doesn't correspond with it.
If everything is thought forms (another way of saying subjective) then objective facts are facts about objectified thought forms.
But objective facts are not ultimate truths.
The MĂĽnchhausen Trilemma takes care of Descartes' cogito in my humble opinion. I ain't sure though, I'm a skeptic, comes with the territory or thereabouts.
It depends on how true 'superposition' is. In the many words theory you can think of an elephant and not think about it at the same time, just not in the same universe.
This question was asked on Quora:
How is it possible for atoms to be at 2 different places at the same time according to quantum mechanics?
The answer given by Michael Price (MSc in quantum field theory) was:
[b]Not just two places, but an infinite number of places. All particles or objects (from electrons to elephants to galaxies) have their position (and state) given by a probability amplitude - called the wave function - which you can use to calculate the probability of the object being at some point (or in some state) if you look. After you look the wave function needs adjusting (wave function collapse) to reflect the fact of where you saw the object. Between observations the wave function evolves according to a wave equation, the nature of which is quite well known in most situations. Wave function collapse occurs either when a particle or object encounters decoherence (usually some form of environmental heat) or when someone (big, hot, squishy, decoherent things like us) observes it.
In the time between one collapse and the next, evolving according to a wave equation (as mentioned), the particle exists in more than one position or state. The interpretation of this is debated, there is no consensus. I go with the many worlds interpretation, but take your pick![/b]
The answer given by the very popular Viktor T. Toth (IT pro, part-time physicist) was:
[b]It is not.
The moment you imagine that atom as a miniature cannonball that is in two places at once, you lost the game: you are failing to understand quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics does not say that the atom is in two places at once. What quantum mechanics says is that the atom has no classically defined position at all between measurements. Its position, rather than being represented by a set of numbers (as in classical mechanics, where the position would be a set of coordinates), is represented instead by the so-called position operator. Unlike the numbers, the position operator does not tell us where the atom is. The atom is neither here nor there, nor anywhere else. The position operator tells us how likely it is that we find the atom at a particular place, if we look. It does not tell us where the atom is.
But when you actually look and find the atom somewhere, the atom is in exactly one place: the place where you found it. It is never in two places at once. However, most of the time (that is, always when you are not looking) it is in no place at all, in a classical sense, as it has no well-defined position.
(And just to be clear, when I somewhat whimsically say, “when you are not looking”, I don’t really mean that a human or a cat has to look at the atom for it to have a position. No, the atom simply has to interact with a macroscopic object or instrument, one that consists of a very large number of particles such that any quantum behaviour is averaged out and it behaves classically.)[/b]
Depends on what we mean.
When I say "not think about an elephant" do I mean in any universe or just this one. I would think I am only talking about this me. Not mes in other universes.
Thanks for QM explanations. I'm inspired to watch some YT videos on the subject. Confusing stuff!
Google reports:
In epistemology, the MĂĽnchhausen trilemma, also commonly known as the Agrippan trilemma, is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics, without appealing to accepted assumptions. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The MĂĽnchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof:
The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.
Ok but do you think the speed of light in a vacuum, or the mass of an electron is the same for every measured electron are absolute, universal FACTS and are TRUE facts. Such measurements can always be improved in accuracy but if they are not absolute truths, they are probably the closest we are every going to get to such.
I agree, and it also depends on whether or not all the superpositions of you are all connected as you.
They are not clones of you or separable from you they are all physically you, just in different states and positions in a multiverse. I am not convinced by the many worlds theory, I am more attracted to cyclical universe theories such as the Penrose bounce.
Quoting Yohan
:up:
:smile: :up:
:up: No worries. If the many worlds theory is true then you have already answered me in every way possible, superpositionally speaking of course. which must include an absolutely true answer as well, so the many worlds theory at least suggests that absolute truths must be possible within the many worlds reference frame.
Vide Trust
You hit the nail on the head when you said skepticism is self-refuting - to argue that no argument is good enough is indeed to shoot oneself. Is it a murder-suicide though?
I don't recall ever typing the phrase 'skepticism is self-refuting,' If I did then I copied it from somewhere as it's seems greater than my skills as a wordsmith could muster. I am a great fan of skepticism but I think its true that whenever humans push the limits of propositional logic, they just seem to encounter paradox or self-refuting logic, quite quickly. Perhaps the knowledge that lies beyond that particular sealed door will remain off limits to the human race for some time yet. We just cant figure out how to open that door yet but......one day......
Skepticism is not self-refuting - absolute or global skepticism is self-refuting and probably psychologically impossible. More conventional skepticism is how science generally works. It shouldn't be confused with cynicism or denialism. For a modern skeptic a claim may not be provisionally accepted until there's evidentiary warrant or it's supported by sound reasoning.
As I already typed Tom, I have no recollection of every typing the phrase, 'skepticism is self-refuting.'
I also did not type that I agreed with it. I merely typed that my skills as a wordsmith are rarely able to put words together in such an aesthetically pleasing way or at least aesthetically pleasing to me.
I agree with your application of skepticism towards any scientific theory, without sufficient empirical evidence or sound reasoning to support it. That would be my approach as well.
:up: ok.
Never said you did. I'm just joining in a general discussion. :wink:
Crossed lines then.
When it gets to debates or arguments between members then often it seems to boil down to 'my reading of the text/s is more nuanced (or more useful) than yours.' With texts all we have are readings, interpretations and re-interpretations.
There are clearly communities of intersubjective thought which share presuppositions and values. Is this a problem for philosophy? Are you looking for a meta-narrative (an account of truth or reality) which will subsume all other thinking?
Quoting Tom Storm
:up:
:smirk:
Well, what I've said isn't something we aren't already familiar with (re novacula occami + other qualities (seemingly) unrelated to truth such as beauty, elegance vis-Ă -vis the scientific method).
Yes, I put those key words there for a reason.
Quoting ArielAssante
Most thought is abstraction. And yet there are better and worse ideas, so I see nothing wrong here.
Quoting ArielAssante
So you are looking to uncover the 'limitations' of your own ideas, based on your understanding of other's ideas?
Quoting ArielAssante
How do you fell your subjective journey has been helpful to others? Has it changed you in a way that others my benefit?
So here is why I said it in its full context again.
Quoting Tom Storm
What bit is missing for you? I'm simply reporting on how these debates strike me.
Quoting ArielAssante
Or you have been unclear. On philosophy sites it is not unusual to have a conversation to gain clarity, right?