How do you know that dreaming is "completely subjective".

I liked this question of Vkothii's on another thread so....
I do not think dreams are completely subjective since they often include accurate representations of the waking world. I have even realized things about, for example, relationships between other people that I did not realize consciously during waking and could later verify by talking to the people involved.
So I think it is sometimes accurate in this banal way about 'waking reality' and that this can be on occasion verified.

Further. Dreams are an experiences of something. I don't limit this to my own psychology or issues only. I do believe that one can experience things while dreaming that are occuring elsewhere. But that is rather controversial. So I will still to keeping my foot in the door and then take that issue on later.

As I said dreams are experiences of something. Often in symbols - which are often subjective, or individualized - I get experiences of myself or my life or current issues or my relationships that are accurate. I can dream about a parent in the role of a boss - has happened - and realize that they have similar ways of communicating or that I am reacting to the boss as if they were like my father or about to be at any moment.

While this information pertains to me, primarily, it is not simply subjective. It reveals facts about me which can also be verified in the experience of others.

I also think it is similar to strong atheism to say that dreams are completely subjective. This is a claim to knowing what dreams are, or at the very least what they cannot possibly be. This is a very strong claim.

Actually, the point is that there is no such thing as "completely subjective" if it implies the non-existence of any objects.

Subjectivity is of objects, Objectivity is of subjects.
That is, dream objects are subjective. Or a dreaming subject sees and hears dream objects.

Now we can try to define what any of these subjects or objects is, or is bounded by, say.
Is all objective (epistemological, or phenomenological) experience, inside a subjective "brain", or can we say that there is no subject, only objects, some of which "perceive", or imagine the world "passing by"?

Is a memory just a bunch of chemical objects and electrons whizzing around? Or does it have a kind of permanent or transient structure?
And so on.

Meaning and value are subjective.
Objects are objective.
Objects can have value and/or meaning to someone. These qualities are subjective, the object itself is not.

Objects can have value and/or meaning ... These qualities are subjective, the object itself is not.

You mean an object is just whatever it is, and can mean different things, subjectively?
Can a subject be an object, or not?
Can an object be "only" an object, or is it always subjective (whatever it is)?

You mean an object is just whatever it is, and can mean different things, subjectively?
Yes

Can a subject be an object, or not?
What is a subject according to you ?

Can an object be "only" an object, or is it always subjective (whatever it is)?
What are you rambling about here ??


Btw. I really do not see how you could not have understood what I said in post 3.

Meaning and value are subjective.
Objects are objective.
Objects can have value and/or meaning to someone. These qualities are subjective, the object itself is not.
We only know objects in a phenomenological realm. Meaning is not the only thing that is created by us, but also the object's qualities. In fact it is we who carve that object out from everything else. The notion that there are objects is our doing.

Of course dreaming is not totally subjective, dreams are influenced also by the environment. If it's too hot, cold, noisy, etc., it will affect your dreams.

If it's too hot you'll probably have nightmares.

We only know objects in a phenomenological realm. Meaning is not the only thing that is created by us, but also the object's qualities. In fact it is we who carve that object out from everything else. The notion that there are objects is our doing.

You are right. Our perception of objects is completely subjective as well, though based on objective reality.
I believe that ultimately there is only form, nothing more.

Of course dreaming is not totally subjective, dreams are influenced also by the environment. If it's too hot, cold, noisy, etc., it will affect your dreams.

If it's too hot you'll probably have nightmares.

Which are all interpretations by the brain, thus subjective.

Objects are things we "experience" as (we are) subjects.
Subjects are also objects.

Subjectivity is the experience of objects.
So subjectivity is like a mapping of objects to subjects (by the subjects)...?

Objectivity is a mapping that subjects make which "tries" to be "non-subjective"? That is, an attempt to "see" objects as objects, not as subjectively-experienced objects. But this is impossible, right?

Total objectivity would mean no subjects, only objects, a subject would need to be an object; this is what scientific observation is meant to mean: observation without interpretation (the observer tries to be only a "measuring object"). But at some point, meaning is required to give any object a subjective value or interpretation - we can't do without meaning.

Objects are things we "experience" as (we are) subjects.
Subjects are also objects.

Subjectivity is the experience of objects.
So subjectivity is like a mapping of objects to subjects (by the subjects)...?

Objectivity is a mapping that subjects make which "tries" to be "non-subjective"? That is, an attempt to "see" objects as objects, not as subjectively-experienced objects. But this is impossible, right?

Total objectivity would mean no subjects, only objects, a subject would need to be an object; this is what scientific observation is meant to mean: observation without interpretation (the observer tries to be only a "measuring object"). But at some point, meaning is required to give any object a subjective value or interpretation - we can't do without meaning.

Oh sure.. :rolleyes:

You are right. Our perception of objects is completely subjective as well, though based on objective reality.
I believe that ultimately there is only form, nothing more.
Form. You mean perceived outlines?

Which are all interpretations by the brain, thus subjective.
Then there would be no difference between dreaming and waking which would also include all 'interpretations' of the brain.

There is no such thing as "completely subjective" is there?

And as for "completely objective", that's actually impossible too.

If something is subjective, it's because the objects in it are subjective.
If something is objective, it's because the subjects in it are objective.

But someone seems to believe that one or the other can exist separately, which they can't.
Obviously.

In dreaming I am experiencing something. I am aware of it. Perhaps I 'should not confuse these 'things' with what I experience during the daytime'. Nevertheless the experience is real. As avatar said these experiences are affected by the environment. They are also affected by real experiences in the past and my have information about them not realized at the time. One can even make decisions based on dreams. Or have decisions made by them.

The form of benzene - note that form, Enmos – was discovered in a day dream.

Inventors like Elias Howe reported that information came to them in dreams. Elias Howe was trying to build a machine that would automate the process of sewing, so that it could be done more quickly. He took a regular needle with a point on one end and a hole on the other end and tried to build a machine that could manipulate the needle and thread the way a seamstress' fingers could.
It didn't work. It was frustrating.
Then he had the dream. Apparently his frustration was influencing his dreams: He dreamed that he had been captured by natives and they had ordered him to invest the machine by morning or he would be executed.
He still couldn't do it, even in his dream.
His dream continued. He dreamed that it was morning, and the natives were closing in on him, thrusting their spears back and forth menacingly as they got closer to him. Now the tips of the spears were almost touching him as the natives thrust them forward.
Suddenly he realized that there was something different about the spears: They had holes going through the points of the spears, from one side to the other. A hole...at the point end of the spear...moving back and forth, back and forth...
He woke up, rushed into his shop and did just the opposite of what he had done before - something that was so "illogical" that he hadn't thought of it in the beta waking state: He drilled a small hole in the point end of the needle instead of the back end, put thread through the hold, pushed it through the cloth, used another threat below the cloth...and he had invented the sewing machine.

Form. You mean perceived outlines?

No, that's not what I meant. Forget about it though, I was wrong.

Then there would be no difference between dreaming and waking which would also include all 'interpretations' of the brain.

In a sense that's correct. But perception is directly based on objective reality while dreams are not.

There is no such thing as "completely subjective" is there?

And as for "completely objective", that's actually impossible too.

If something is subjective, it's because the objects in it are subjective.
If something is objective, it's because the subjects in it are objective.

But someone seems to believe that one or the other can exist separately, which they can't.
Obviously.

You seriously have no clue do you.. ?

You seriously have no clue do you.. ?Seriously?
I would seriously say, that you appear to be the one with that particular problem.
Can you show everyone an example of a "completely subjective", or "completely objective" anything?

I'd say not - not because you don't want to; because you can't. There are no such things.

In dreaming I am experiencing something. I am aware of it. Perhaps I 'should not confuse these 'things' with what I experience during the daytime'. Nevertheless the experience is real. As avatar said these experiences are affected by the environment. They are also affected by real experiences in the past and my have information about them not realized at the time. One can even make decisions based on dreams. Or have decisions made by them.

The form of benzene - note that form, Enmos – was discovered in a day dream.

Yes the experience is as real as awake perception but dreams are not based directly on objective reality. Instead they are mainly reproductions of awake perception and reinterpretations thereof. I say mainly because some 'real-time' input takes place as well (as avatar mentioned).

I think I was wrong about form, but I'm not sure.. it's why I say I believe only form exists.

Seriously?
I would seriously say, that you appear to be the one with that particular problem.
Can you show everyone an example of a "completely subjective", or "completely objective" anything?

I'd say not - not because you don't want to; because you can't. There are no such things.

I can't show you anything subjective because subjectivity resides only in the mind.
I can't show you anything objective because we can only perceive subjectively.

I think you try to look at the 'big picture' and so somehow merge the two concepts..

What do you mean "merge the two concepts"?
Are you implying that they exist as separate concepts from each other?

What do you mean "merge the two concepts"?
Are you implying that they exist as separate concepts from each other?

Uhm yea.. are you implying they don't ?

In a sense that's correct. But perception is directly based on objective reality while dreams are not.

How could we possibly know this?
And what do think dreams are based on?

[QUOTE]Yes the experience is as real as awake perception but dreams are not based directly on objective reality. Instead they are mainly reproductions of awake perception and reinterpretations thereof. I say mainly because some 'real-time' input takes place as well (as avatar mentioned).
How do we know this?
How did people come up with information that created technology that was effective in what you are calling objective reality in their dreams?

Also 'reproductions of awake perception and reinterpretations thereof' could be a description of thinking. Can we think about objective reality? Isn't thinking in some ways objective? If it is only subjective then while do we section off dreaming as subjective? Mental activity of all kinds should then be called subjective. The term becomes all inclusive and essentially meaningless.
In most contexts it tend to imply that such activities are not useful in practical ways. But this is clearly not the case. Nor is it for thinking.

are you implying they don't ?Yes.
Because they don't exist separately.
They can't "exist" as separate concepts at all.

Is subjectivity of objects, or isn't it?
What about objectivity, no subjects needed?

[QUOTE=Enmos;1782503]
How do we know this?
How did people come up with information that created technology that was effective in what you are calling objective reality in their dreams?

Also 'reproductions of awake perception and reinterpretations thereof' could be a description of thinking. Can we think about objective reality? Isn't thinking in some ways objective? If it is only subjective then while do we section off dreaming as subjective? Mental activity of all kinds should then be called subjective. The term becomes all inclusive and essentially meaningless.
In most contexts it tend to imply that such activities are not useful in practical ways. But this is clearly not the case. Nor is it for thinking.

The process of dreaming is objective, but the dreams themselves are subjective.
I imagine thinking and dreaming aren't really that different, they are just different modes I guess.

Yes.
Because they don't exist separately.
They can't "exist" as separate concepts at all.

Is subjectivity of objects, or isn't it?
What about objectivity, no subjects needed?

You think ?

Concept 1: Subjective
sub·jec·tive
–adjective
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

Concept 2: Objective
ob·jec·tive
–noun
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

The process of dreaming is objective, but the dreams themselves are subjective.
I imagine thinking and dreaming aren't really that different, they are just different modes I guess.
Then there would be something disingenuous about saying dreaming is completely subjective. Most would assume this distinguished dreaming from other mental activities.

You think ?

Concept 1: Subjective
sub·jec·tive
–adjective
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective
[/url]
It seems like all mental activity falls under this definition. We never have direct contact with the objects - at least according to the objectivists here. Everying is interpreted, selected out, biases, delayed, mediated. Objective to me is beginning to sound like heaven. Something we cannot perceive or know but must be out there somewhere.

It seems like all mental activity falls under this definition. We never have direct contact with the objects - at least according to the objectivists here. Everying is interpreted, selected out, biases, delayed, mediated. Objective to me is beginning to sound like heaven. Something we cannot perceive or know but must be out there somewhere.

Only thoughts, mental images etc. is subjective, not the actual processes going on in the brain itself. The brain is an object as well..

We only know objects in a phenomenological realm. Meaning is not the only thing that is created by us, but also the object's qualities. In fact it is we who carve that object out from everything else. The notion that there are objects is our doing.

Yet you say dreaming is not wholly subjective because it has " objects" whch, if I understand you correctly only exist because we have subjectively given them qualities via our senses. In short., we do not know what it is to be a stone but we attribute qualities such as hardness, weight, colour and so on to it. The stone is not aware of having such qualities; it is just a stone.

A dream is the result of cerebral activity. How can it be other than subjective ?

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Only thoughts, mental images etc. is subjective, not the actual processes going on in the brain itself. The brain is an object as well..
I am not sure why you are raising this issue.

[QUOTE=Enmos;1782503]
How do we know this?
How did people come up with information that created technology that was effective in what you are calling objective reality in their dreams?

Also 'reproductions of awake perception and reinterpretations thereof' could be a description of thinking. Can we think about objective reality? Isn't thinking in some ways objective? If it is only subjective then while do we section off dreaming as subjective? Mental activity of all kinds should then be called subjective. The term becomes all inclusive and essentially meaningless.
In most contexts it tend to imply that such activities are not useful in practical ways. But this is clearly not the case. Nor is it for thinking.

The whole point is that when we talk of dreaming we are referring to a cerebral activity. What you call discovery, i.e., the benzene ring was not dreamt of as such but symbolized by a snake swallowing its tail. The point is that dreams are based on information stored in the brain and they may be influenced by external stimuli which are interpreted subjectively.

I am not sure why you are raising this issue.

I thought you were claiming that brain activity was subjective.. ?

The whole point is that when we talk of dreaming we are referring to a cerebral activity. What you call discovery, i.e., the benzene ring was not dreamt of as such but symbolized by a snake swallowing its tail. The point is that dreams are based on information stored in the brain and they may be influenced by external stimuli which are interpreted subjectively.

That is actually not a quote of me.. just for the record lol

Another example:
Dream Leads to Nobel Prize

Otto Loewi (1873-1961), a German born physiologist, won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1936 for his work on the chemical transmission of nerve impulses. In 1903, Loewi had the idea that there might be a chemical transmission of the nervous impulse rather than an electrical one, which was the common held belief, but he was at a loss on how to prove it. He let the idea slip to the back of his mind until 17 years later he had the following dream. According to Loewi:
Otto Loewi - Creativity and discovery from dreams - dream interpretation and science


Dr. Otto Loewi

"The night before Easter Sunday of that year I awoke, turned on the light, and jotted down a few notes on a tiny slip of paper. Then I fell asleep again. It occurred to me at 6 o'clock in the morning that during the night I had written down something most important, but I was unable to decipher the scrawl. The next night, at 3 o'clock, the idea returned. It was the design of an experiment to determine whether or not the hypothesis of chemical transmission that I had uttered 17 years ago was correct. I got up immediately, went to the laboratory, and performed a single experiment on a frog's heart according to the nocturnal design."

It took Loewi a decade to carry out a decisive series of tests to satisfy his critics, but ultimately the result of his initial dream induced experiment became the foundation for the theory of chemical transmission of the nervous impulse and led to a Nobel Prize!

Dr. Loewi noted: "Most so called 'intuitive' discoveries are such associations made in the subconscious."

Another example:

What's your point with these examples ?

I thought you were claiming that brain activity was subjective.. ?
Brain activities like thinking, imagining, etc. would be subjective if dreaming is subjective given what you had said about dreaming. I am not making claims about what, I suppose, you would call the 'object brain'. I am not sure what claims can be made about such a thing if all we have to go on is subjective.

In other words saying that dreams are completely subjective is likely to be a pejorative use of the term subjective. IOW nothing encountered or learned from a dream will have objective application or contain truth in practical ways. This is not the case. But if we are going to define dreaming in the way you did, I wanted to point out that mental activities that we generally think of as being useful, practical and 'about' objective reality also fit under your definition.

I have been pretty habitual here. If someone has a belief I tend to try to point out some of the potential implications of that belief that they may not have considered. Perhaps someone is comfortable dismissing dream as subjective but is less comfortable dismissing throughts and so-called rational mental processes completely subjective.

You, Enmos, tend to be comfortable with the implications of what you say. Kudos to you. But you make a great foil for me to generate the implications with.

What's your point with these examples ?

My point is that dreams seemed to offer information about what most people would call objective things.

If you label dreams as completely subjective, it seems to imply something like it is an experience which relates only to the experiencer and has no information that can be verified and of use to others, certainly not in the development of tools, for example, or deeper understanding of what is 'out there' and accessible to others. But this is clearly not the case. I am specifically choosing scientific examples, though I think there are many other examples out there that are just as objective. In other words that have to do with what is out there.

For example:

Mathematical Genius & Dreamer- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887-1920) was one of India's greatest mathematical geniuses. He made substantial contributions to analytical theory of numbers and worked on elliptical functions, continued fractions, and infinite series. In 1914, he was invited in to Cambridge University by the English mathematician GH Hardy who recognized his unconventional genius. He worked there for five years producing startling results and proved over 3,000 theorems in his lifetime.

According to Ramanujan, inspiration and insight for his work many times came to him in his dreams...

A Hindu goddess, named Namakkal, would appear and present mathematical formulae which he would verify after waking. Such dreams often repeated themselves and the connection with the dream world as a source for his work was constant throughout his life.
Infinite series of pi - Hindu Goddess Dreams - Srinivasa Ramanujan
Infinite series for π. Example of formulae Ramanujan developed that led to new directions of research.
Source: Wikipedia

Ramanujan describes one of his dreams of mathematical discovery:

"While asleep I had an unusual experience. There was a red screen formed by flowing blood as it were. I was observing it. Suddenly a hand began to write on the screen. I became all attention. That hand wrote a number of results in elliptic integrals. They stuck to my mind. As soon as I woke up, I committed them to writing..."

or (and I think this one is a beauty because it shows how the dream images were more perceptive than waking ones in a sensory way)

Subliminal Clues From Fossil Perceived In Dream

Louis Agassiz (1807-1883) was a Swiss born naturalist, zoologist, geologist, and teacher who emigrated to the US in 1846. He trained and influenced a generation of American zoologists and paleontologists and is one of the founding fathers of the modern American scientific tradition

While Agassiz was working on his vast work "Poissons Fossiles" a list of all know fossil fish, he came across a specimen in a stone slab which he was, at first, unable to figure out. He hesitated to classify it and extract it since an incorrect approach could ruin the specimen. At that time, Agassiz reports having a dream three nights in a row in which he saw the fish in perfect original condition. The first two nights -- being unprepared -- he did not record his image.
Lucid Dream Discovery - Vivid Dream Discovery - Agassiz fossil fish

Illustration of fossil fish from Les Poissons Fossiles, Louis Agassiz, 1843. Source: Strange Science

By the third night he was ready with pen and paper, and when the fish appeared again in the dream he drew it in the dark, still half asleep. The next day he looked at his drawing which had remarkably different features from the ones he had been working out, hastened to his laboratory and extracting the fossil realized it corresponded exactly to his dream.

Agassiz' creative dream of the fossilized fish may have been induced by having perceived unconsciously a clue in the stone slab which he had ignored while awake.

Brain activities like thinking, imagining, etc. would be subjective if dreaming is subjective given what you had said about dreaming. I am not making claims about what, I suppose, you would call the 'object brain'. I am not sure what claims can be made about such a thing if all we have to go on is subjective.
It seems you're doing the same thing as Vk now.
There are biochemical and electrical processes taken place in the brain when we think, imagine etc. These processes are objective. What we experience of these processes is subjective.
The reason I said the brain itself is an object as well was to point to these objective processes rather then what we experience of them.

In other words saying that dreams are completely subjective is likely to be a pejorative use of the term subjective. IOW nothing encountered or learned from a dream will have objective application or contain truth in practical ways. This is not the case. But if we are going to define dreaming in the way you did, I wanted to point out that mental activities that we generally think of as being useful, practical and 'about' objective reality also fit under your definition.
What's the problem with that ? Maybe when we dream some switch is just flipped to dream-mode ;)

I have been pretty habitual here. If someone has a belief I tend to try to point out some of the potential implications of that belief that they may not have considered. Perhaps someone is comfortable dismissing dream as subjective but is less comfortable dismissing throughts and so-called rational mental processes completely subjective.
I agree, but I really don't think that our willingness to accept or reject something has any bearing on reality.

You, Enmos, tend to be comfortable with the implications of what you say. Kudos to you. But you make a great foil for me to generate the implications with.
I'm sorry, could you please rephrase that last sentence ? :o

My point is that dreams seemed to offer information about what most people would call objective things.

If you label dreams as completely subjective, it seems to imply something like it is an experience which relates only to the experiencer and has no information that can be verified and of use to others, certainly not in the development of tools, for example, or deeper understanding of what is 'out there' and accessible to others. But this is clearly not the case. I am specifically choosing scientific examples, though I think there are many other examples out there that are just as objective. In other words that have to do with what is out there.

For example:



or (and I think this one is a beauty because it shows how the dream images were more perceptive than waking ones in a sensory way)

No no.. I said perception is directly based on objective reality and that dreams are based on those perceptions. I think you misunderstood.

That is actually not a quote of me.. just for the record lol

A thoudsand apologies. That's the first mistake I've made on the last 40 tears.

A thoudsand apologies. That's the first mistake I've made on the last 40 tears.

The last 40 tears huh ? lol :p

Can we not agree that objects can only be experienced subjectively ? We do not know what things are in and of themselves. For example. a bee's view of a flower is different from mine.

Neuronall activity is objective. i.e., it exists. Our dreams are the result of such activity manipulating information that has been stored iin the brain. It follows that dreams are subjective because the material being manipuilated is our subjective interpretation of the world.

The last 40 tears huh ? lol :p

Yep, I remember it well. There was an occasion when I thought I was wrong.That was a mistake.

Can we not agree that objects can only be experienced subjectively ? We do not know what things are in and of themselves. For example. a bee's view of a flower is different from mine.

Neuronall activity is objective. i.e., it exists. Our dreams are the result of such activity manipulating information that has been stored iin the brain. It follows that dreams are subjective because the material being manipuilated is our subjective interpretation of the world.

I agree. Glad we settled it, the thread can be closed now lol :D

Yep, I remember it well. There was an occasion when I thought I was wrong.That was a mistake.

So you were.. erm.. :scratchin: ;)

So you were.. erm.. :scratchin: ;)

Right as usual. I'm off to dinner now . The butler is banging the gong and I'm not even properly attired. Must dash, old bean. Toodle pip.

Right as usual. I'm off to dinner now . The butler is banging the gong and I'm not even properly attired. Must dash, old bean. Toodle pip.

Yea, I'm off too. See ya.. ;)

No no.. I said perception is directly based on objective reality and that dreams are based on those perceptions. I think you misunderstood.
Perception, perhaps, but you acknowledged that thinking fit the same description you gave for dreaming, thus making it subjective. Thinking involves remembering, mixing, extending and reinterpreting perceptions - if I may paraphrase you, and thus is just as subjective as dreaming.

[QUOTE]It seems you're doing the same thing as Vk now.
There are biochemical and electrical processes taken place in the brain when we think, imagine etc. These processes are objective. What we experience of these processes is subjective.
The reason I said the brain itself is an object as well was to point to these objective processes rather then what we experience of them.

No I am not taking that position. I'll leave it to V to decide if he is. But it is a side issue.


What's the problem with that ? Maybe when we dream some switch is just flipped to dream-mode ;)
also not an issue.


I agree, but I really don't think that our willingness to accept or reject something has any bearing on reality.
It is a part of reality. You're accepting or not does not change it's status. I see this as a dynamic interchange, an interpersonal one. Certainly finding out what is true and not true is interesting and fun, but it is not the only thing I am doing.


I'm sorry, could you please rephrase that last sentence ?
I pointed out that your definition of dreaming had implications about the subjective nature of thinking. Both processes could be nicely described the way you did. Some rationalists might be bothered by having this pointed out, wanting thinking, especially 'rational' thinking to be priviledged. You, on the other hand, accepted the implications. I like that about you. What I have found repeatedly with you is that you are willing to be consistant, even if it might not be so pleasant. I think this is unique. If we are going to burst bubbles we must allow out our own bubbles to be on the table. If they are.

That's all. I do not agree with your definition of what dreaming must be. But that is less important to me than getting you to agree to the implications of your definition. No getting needed on my part. You simply acknowledged it. This separates you, I think, from others here. I called you a foil, perhaps sounding board might be a better more respectful term, not that I meant disrespect with the other term. I better explain things when we interact.

Sowhat.....

I'd be intertested to know what you think of my post 45 above,

Still haven't seen any evidence that a subject is a distinct phenomenon from an object.

Because there are no such things as distinct subjects or distinct objects, like I said a while back.
To be a subject, a subject requires objects; to be an object, an object requires subjects. They can't be separate, even if you imagine they can be.

You can apply different meanings (from some dictionary, say), but you can't describe a subject in an "object-free" way. Same with an object, there is no subject-free object. Such things don't make any sense.
Well, maybe to some they do.

[QUOTE=Vkothii;1783048]Still haven't seen any evidence that a subject is a distinct phenomenon from an object.
Because there are no such things as distinct subjects or distinct objects, like I said a while back.
To be a subject, a subject requires objects; to be an object, an object requires subjects. They can't be separate, even if you imagine they can be.

You can apply different meanings (from some dictionary, say), but you can't describe a subject in an "object-free" way. Same with an object, there is no subject-free object. Such things don't make any sense.
Well, maybe to some they do.

No offence meant,.but I'd say you still haven't understood what was said to you.

I'd say you still haven't understood what was said to you.

Why do you say this, though?

How does what you say show that dreams are "completely subjective"?
What does "completely subjective" actually mean?
(I say it means nothing, or it has no meaning.)

And this is still a "problem", for me anyway. The implication that there can be such a thing as a separate. distinct subject. or object. Clearly this is wrong, there are no such animals.

Me: "Are you implying that [subjects and objects] exist as separate concepts from each other? "

Enmos: "Uhm yea.. are you implying they don't ?"

Someone appears to believe that they can conceive of a distinct subject (but refuses to give an example, or says they can't give one).
The reason they can't, although they also don't seem to want to acknowledge this, is because no such thing exists.

Sure

Are you?

There are biochemical and electrical processes taken place in the brain when we think, imagine etc. These processes are objective.Objective means a subject "sees" them as objects, right?
Or is that wrong?
What we experience of these processes is subjective.Subjective means that a subject "sees" objects, right?
Or wrong again?

So, where is there a "complete subject" in all this? Or a "complete object"?

Do they exist? Is there such a thing as a subject which sees no objects?
Is there such a thing as an object which is not seen by any subject?
Or is that the wrong question?

Is the answer that any "completely subjective" experience is also "completely objective"?
The phrase "completely subjective", implies "completely objective", since a subject can't be a subject unless there are objects. Likewise there aren't any objects unless a subject experiences them (subjectively and objectively).

P.S. Don't feel any obligation here, I mean you can just ignore this.

Some of the posters here at 'forum are quite practised at ignoring questions.
Particularly those questions that might cast some doubt on their "philosophy".

Still haven't seen any evidence that a subject is a distinct phenomenon from an object.

Because there are no such things as distinct subjects or distinct objects, like I said a while back.
To be a subject, a subject requires objects; to be an object, an object requires subjects. They can't be separate, even if you imagine they can be.

You can apply different meanings (from some dictionary, say), but you can't describe a subject in an "object-free" way. Same with an object, there is no subject-free object. Such things don't make any sense.
Well, maybe to some they do.
Could you apply this to dreams.

Thinking is a process where memories,verbal mulling mix and imagination mix. I think a case can be made that what is imagined is also built on memories, at least to some degree. Dreams are also made up of these REHASHINGS of perceptions. They tend, at least mine do, to have less abstract thought. But they have some, at least mine do, and clearly some of the examples of useful insights about the objective world I mentioned earlier had those elements. Some in symbolic form, some in direct form.

So both thinking and dreaming at at least one step remove from perception. Both can and have been used to develop understandings and useful tools for dealing with objects. I cannot see how one can call dreaming completely subjective without also calling thinking this. Enmos seems to be making the case that dreaming is not a process where the subject comes in contact with objects. I do not agree with this as a generalization, but I do not need to focus on that to point out that the same is true of thinking.

If people are willing to accept that thinking is also completely subjective, I am pretty much ready to pack up my little display cart.

I do think that strong arguments can be made that perceiving, especially what we consciously experience of it, already involves interpretations, selection, editing, contortion, blind spots, cultural biases, habits that make for repetition rather than open experiencing and so on. But I leave that to another camp.

I think given the fact that both thinking and dreaming are experiences of something real they involve objective elements - if one must split things up into objective and subjective. I think the proof of this comes in that both can create verifiable useful tools and insights about what is happening and can be done to objects and subjects 'out there'. They are both connected in some way to objects. Further in both we have nerve cells receiving input from real things. In other words our nerves are not reacting to our mind, unless you are comfortable with that dualism, even in dreams.

I consider this actually rather conservative. I think stronger claims could be made for the objectivity involved in both processes. But I figure it's best to have a foundation before moving into more controversial areas.

Still haven't seen any evidence that a subject is a distinct phenomenon from an object.

Because there are no such things as distinct subjects or distinct objects, like I said a while back.
To be a subject, a subject requires objects; to be an object, an object requires subjects. They can't be separate, even if you imagine they can be.

You can apply different meanings (from some dictionary, say), but you can't describe a subject in an "object-free" way. Same with an object, there is no subject-free object. Such things don't make any sense.
Well, maybe to some they do.

Here:
I can't show you anything subjective because subjectivity resides only in the mind.
I can't show you anything objective because we can only perceive subjectively.

I think you try to look at the 'big picture' and so somehow merge the two concepts..

And here:
You think ?

Concept 1: Subjective
sub·jec·tive
–adjective
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

Concept 2: Objective
ob·jec·tive
–noun
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

Perception, perhaps, but you acknowledged that thinking fit the same description you gave for dreaming, thus making it subjective. Thinking involves remembering, mixing, extending and reinterpreting perceptions - if I may paraphrase you, and thus is just as subjective as dreaming.

Well yea.. you don't agree ?

I pointed out that your definition of dreaming had implications about the subjective nature of thinking. Both processes could be nicely described the way you did. Some rationalists might be bothered by having this pointed out, wanting thinking, especially 'rational' thinking to be priviledged. You, on the other hand, accepted the implications. I like that about you. What I have found repeatedly with you is that you are willing to be consistant, even if it might not be so pleasant. I think this is unique. If we are going to burst bubbles we must allow out our own bubbles to be on the table. If they are.

Well thanks :)
I'm just being honest, it's what I expect of everyone else here too.

That's all. I do not agree with your definition of what dreaming must be. But that is less important to me than getting you to agree to the implications of your definition. No getting needed on my part. You simply acknowledged it. This separates you, I think, from others here. I called you a foil, perhaps sounding board might be a better more respectful term, not that I meant disrespect with the other term. I better explain things when we interact.
Ah thanks for clearing that up. I had to look up the word 'foil', I was kinda hoping you didn't mean it the way I thought you meant it ;)

But home come you don't agree ?
If it's not too much trouble could you reproduce from memory what my definition is, so I can see whether you 'got' what I meant ?

Objective means a subject "sees" them as objects, right?
Or is that wrong?
Wrong.
Objective is something that exists independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Subjective means that a subject "sees" objects, right?
Or wrong again?
What is a subject exactly according to you ? I believe I asked it before..

So, where is there a "complete subject" in all this? Or a "complete object"?
Awaiting your answer on what a subject is to you.
Why do you feel the need to use quotes and attach the word 'complete' ?
To answer the second question: everywhere.

Do they exist? Is there such a thing as a subject which sees no objects?
Is there such a thing as an object which is not seen by any subject?
Or is that the wrong question?
Again awaiting your answer.
Second question: Objective reality cannot be accurately be perceived.

Is the answer that any "completely subjective" experience is also "completely objective"?
No. Experience is subjective.

The phrase "completely subjective", implies "completely objective", since a subject can't be a subject unless there are objects.
Please explain 'subject' to me.. or are you camouflaging the word 'object' ?

Likewise there aren't any objects unless a subject experiences them (subjectively and objectively).
Ok, this is completely moronic..

Thinking is a process where memories,verbal mulling mix and imagination mix. I think a case can be made that what is imagined is also built on memories, at least to some degree. Dreams are also made up of these REHASHINGS of perceptions. They tend, at least mine do, to have less abstract thought. But they have some, at least mine do, and clearly some of the examples of useful insights about the objective world I mentioned earlier had those elements. Some in symbolic form, some in direct form.

So both thinking and dreaming at at least one step remove from perception. Both can and have been used to develop understandings and useful tools for dealing with objects. I cannot see how one can call dreaming completely subjective without also calling thinking this. Enmos seems to be making the case that dreaming is not a process where the subject comes in contact with objects. I do not agree with this as a generalization, but I do not need to focus on that to point out that the same is true of thinking.

If people are willing to accept that thinking is also completely subjective, I am pretty much ready to pack up my little display cart.

I do think that strong arguments can be made that perceiving, especially what we consciously experience of it, already involves interpretations, selection, editing, contortion, blind spots, cultural biases, habits that make for repetition rather than open experiencing and so on. But I leave that to another camp.

I think given the fact that both thinking and dreaming are experiences of something real they involve objective elements - if one must split things up into objective and subjective. I think the proof of this comes in that both can create verifiable useful tools and insights about what is happening and can be done to objects and subjects 'out there'. They are both connected in some way to objects. Further in both we have nerve cells receiving input from real things. In other words our nerves are not reacting to our mind, unless you are comfortable with that dualism, even in dreams.

I consider this actually rather conservative. I think stronger claims could be made for the objectivity involved in both processes. But I figure it's best to have a foundation before moving into more controversial areas.

The red part is IT.
If you agree that perception is subjective then I honestly cannot see how you can say that thinking and dreaming are not.

The red part is IT.
If you agree that perception is subjective then I honestly cannot see how you can say that thinking and dreaming are not.

I am doing two things at once and just in case that is confusing - which would not be surprising- let me list those two things clearly:
1) I am making a case that dreaming is not entirely subjective
2) I am pointing out that if you or someone else think it is, this may cause you problems.

So the portion you highlighted in red is my pointing out that your saying that perception is of objective things is not on so solid ground.

I would also like to point out again, though it seemed to irritate you last time I did this, that you are contradicting yourself. Your post, which is quoted above is your thought which you seem quite sure is objective. You are not talking about your perception, you are talking about perception in general. How is it that your thinking, which is subjective, makes such complete claims about objective reality. I still think you want your cake and eat it too. You want to say that your thoughts are merely subjective, as are mine, and everyone else's, and yet yours, at least, are, at times universally applicable. In fact you are quite sure other people's thoughts, at least some of them, are wrong. How is you believe what you believe and yet are confident that your subjective thoughts are hooked in with objective reality?

A second issue I need to raise then is: given that some people have managed to find what seems to be objective uses from their subjective processes - thinking, dreaming - how is this possible? Were these merely lucky guesses, Enmos? How is it that some people's thinking seems to rate above random when it comes to applications if their thinking is subjective?

Well yea.. you don't agree ?
I notice that any possible use of the word objective seems accessible to this 'completely subjective' process. If the word objective has some meaning - and I am not sure, as Greenberg also seems to be unsure, that the split is useful - then, at least sometimes both dreaming and thinking are objective. They relate accurately to things not of the self.

I am doing two things at once and just in case that is confusing - which would not be surprising- let me list those two things clearly:
1) I am making a case that dreaming is not entirely subjective
2) I am pointing out that if you or someone else think it is, this may cause you problems.

So the portion you highlighted in red is my pointing out that your say that perception is of objective things is not so solid ground.
Huh ? The portion in red makes my point that perception is subjective but based on objective reality.

How does it create problems ?

I would also like to point out again, though it seemed to irritate you last time I did this, that you are contradicting yourself. Your post, which is quoted above is your thought which you seem quite sure is objective. You are not talking about your perception, you are talking about perception in general. How is it that your thinking, which is subjective, makes such complete claims about objective reality.
My thoughts are not objective.. and I never claimed they are.
I am talking about perception in general which includes my own.
I have never made complete claims about objective reality.

A second issue I need to raise then is: given that some people have managed to find what seems to be objective uses from their subjective processes - thinking, dreaming - how is this possible? Were these merely lucky guesses, Enmos? How is it that some people's thinking seems to rate above random when it comes to applications if their thinking is subjective?
Because their brains are efficient at it ? I don't see the problem.
Btw. what is an objective use ?

I notice that any possible use of the word objective seems accessible to this 'completely subjective' process. If the word objective has some meaning - and I am not sure, as Greenberg also seems to be unsure, that the split is useful - then, at least sometimes both dreaming and thinking are objective. They relate accurately to things not of the self.

Whether the split is useful or not does not have any bearing on reality.
They relate..

Huh ? The portion in red makes my point that perception is subjective but based on objective reality.
I think you need to explain how the subjective connects to the objective. If it is subjective - my thinking or perceiving - how is it also about the objective. If it is about the objective this means that it may be distorted but it is also accurate. To the degree that it is accurate it is objective.

My thoughts are not objective.. and I never claimed they are.
I am talking about perception in general which includes my own.
I have never made complete claims about objective reality.
Here's an example:
perception is subjective but based on objective reality

Just take a step back for a moment and notice Enmos that you are indeed stating bluntly very profound - by this I mean all encompassing and related to foundations - statements about what is.
You are stating that there is an objective reality. You are saying that our perception of it is subjective - which means, amongst other things, not objective to you. Perception is based on this reality. Dreaming and thinking are not based on this reality. They are reinterpretations. These are a lot of strong statements about the nature of us, our modes of being, reality and how we relate to it. We are, after all, a part of reality. To state with certainty that you know that perception is based on objective reality is to make statements about objective reality.

You distinguish between thinking and perceiving and know that they are based on different things, or are not grounded in the same thing.

This is all your subjective thoughts making claims about objective reality. If you are right, how did you manage to figure this out with your subjective thoughts? Since these, unlike perception, are not based on objective reality. And how did these scientists manage to come up with ideas that seem to describe and function in objective reality in dreams that are not based on objective reality.

That's the cake and eat to aspect for me. You want to talk about objective reality. You state your thoughts about it while at the same time asserting that thinking is not based on objective reality. How would you even know such a thing? And at the very best, I can imagine you could only be sure this applied to yourself. You certainly would have no access to other people and their skills. How do you know your assumptions that we are all the same are based on objective reality?

Because their brains are efficient at it ? I don't see the problem.
Btw. what is an objective use ?
I can imagine a bicycle with wings like a bird made out of straws. But I build it and it does not fly. Some of the examples I gave earlier show that people can imagine or dream things and make them work. I am not arguing for universal value in my use of the term 'use'. I mean it works. I could give you the design and you could go off and make one too.

I think you need to explain how the subjective connects to the objective. If it is subjective - my thinking or perceiving - how is it also about the objective. If it is about the objective this means that it may be distorted but it is also accurate. To the degree that it is accurate it is objective.
Subjective - relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

I think you're going at it backwards.
Start in objective reality then work your way towards subjectivity.
Light for example is just electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that the light receptors in the eye can react to by sending impulses to the brain. The impulses then go through different parts of the brain before they 'end up' in the visual cortex. All the while the impulses are processed and modified in certain ways. So what we eventually see is not only not objective reality but it's not even what our retina originally picked up.
These images can then be used to ponder the qualities of an object. But the image we have of the object is different from objective reality, though based on it.

I hope this helped.. :)


Here's an example:

Just take a step back for a moment and notice Enmos that you are indeed stating bluntly very profound - by this I mean all encompassing and related to foundations - statements about what is.
You are stating that there is an objective reality. You are saying that our perception of it is subjective - which means, amongst other things, not objective to you. Perception is based on this reality. Dreaming and thinking are not based on this reality. They are reinterpretations. These are a lot of strong statements about the nature of us, our modes of being, reality and how we relate to it. We are, after all, a part of reality. To state with certainty that you know that perception is based on objective reality is to make statements about objective reality.
Dreaming and thinking are based in objective reality, only not directly.
And while I have made statements about objective reality there are by no means complete as you said earlier, and they are mirrored at perceived reality (subjective reality).

You distinguish between thinking and perceiving and know that they are based on different things, or are not grounded in the same thing.
I never said that, see above..

This is all your subjective thoughts making claims about objective reality. If you are right, how did you manage to figure this out with your subjective thoughts? Since these, unlike perception, are not based on objective reality. And how did these scientists manage to come up with ideas that seem to describe and function in objective reality in dreams that are not based on objective reality.
Sigh.. lol ;)

That's the cake and eat to aspect for me. You want to talk about objective reality. You state your thoughts about it while at the same time asserting that thinking is not based on objective reality. How would you even know such a thing? And at the very best, I can imagine you could only be sure this applied to yourself. You certainly would have no access to other people and their skills. How do you know your assumptions that we are all the same are based on objective reality?

Ok, you are basing all these questions and statement on something you think I said. I think you misread or misunderstood somewhere..

I can imagine a bicycle with wings like a bird made out of straws. But I build it and it does not fly. Some of the examples I gave earlier show that people can imagine or dream things and make them work. I am not arguing for universal value in my use of the term 'use'. I mean it works. I could give you the design and you could go off and make one too.
I still don't see why that is a problem for you :shrug:

You are not paying attention to what you are doing Enmos.
Pass

I realized that I am getting confused by your phrases 'grounded in' and 'based on'. Or you are getting confused by my uses of these or similar terms. I think this has led to some of our confusions. That said I still feel you are missing something obvious about your stance.

I have a feeling this is related to this:

I think you're going at it backwards.
Start in objective reality then work your way towards subjectivity.

I was really glad you said this. You are not alone in thinking that I am coming at it backwards. I think this is very odd. One does in fact start within subjective reality. One cannot start out there. Or at least I can't. I think either you are constituted differently - as are a number of rationalists - or you are very confused about where one must start. To reach that 'objective' account you gave of visual perception you had to begin with subjective experience, interpretation, analysis, intuition to build up this objective viewpoint. Things that you call subjective. To me it makes sense to begin where I began. Not to look at maps made by others and say that I begin with their map. Actually no. Their map would be unintelligible to you without perceiving, thinking, imagining....And you decided you liked that map and were drawn to look at it, read it
by moving
outward.

It makes sense for me to retrace steps. To begin at the beginning, where we all still are, however much we may think we are our ideas.

And I have taken several college courses in sensory physiology and animal sensory physiology - just cause these topics interested me, also from that 'objective' map approach. I am not saying these maps are wrong, limited perhaps, but that is another topic. it's just that I know what that map is made of. How I made it so to speak when and after I sought it out.

If you are moving in the other direction, then on some level you must be building a self, your subjective self, out of facts about the world. Moving inward toward Enmos, quite unlike how I have learned. How fascinating.

But I suspect our differences will make communicating useless, then. I suspect that what I have written above will simply be confusing for you. You think the map is more real that what I would call the territory. Using Alfred Korzybski's terms.

Objective is something that exists independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
So an object doesn't need a subject, in order to exist?
I'm going through this in the smallest steps I can, somewhere there's a contradiction, but it keeps getting ignored or stepped over, I need to stub a toe on it (not necessarily my toe, but).

P.S. My favourite version of "subject" is: "something that can perceive objects".
What's yours? What do you claim experiences "subjective reality" or "objective reality"?
Where objective reality is concerned, the one that can't be accurately perceived, are there any subjects needed in it for it to exist?
If not, how does a subject perceive objects at all, even inaccurately?

So an object doesn't need a subject, in order to exist?
I'm going through this in the smallest steps I can, somewhere there's a contradiction, but it keeps getting ignored or stepped over, I need to stub a toe on it (not necessarily my toe, but).

P.S. My favourite version of "subject" is: "something that can perceive objects".
What's yours? What do you claim experiences "subjective reality" or "objective reality"?
Where objective reality is concerned, the one that can't be accurately perceived, are there any subjects needed in it for it to exist?
If not, how does a subject perceive objects at all, even inaccurately?

You're taking a different approach to the gap with Enmos, but I think it is the same gap.

I realized that I am getting confused by your phrases 'grounded in' and 'based on'. Or you are getting confused by my uses of these or similar terms. I think this has led to some of our confusions. That said I still feel you are missing something obvious about your stance.

I have a feeling this is related to this:

I was really glad you said this. You are not alone in thinking that I am coming at it backwards. I think this is very odd. One does in fact start within subjective reality. One cannot start out there. Or at least I can't. I think either you are constituted differently - as are a number of rationalists - or you are very confused about where one must start. To reach that 'objective' account you gave of visual perception you had to begin with subjective experience, interpretation, analysis, intuition to build up this objective viewpoint. Things that you call subjective. To me it makes sense to begin where I began. Not to look at maps made by others and say that I begin with their map. Actually no. Their map would be unintelligible to you without perceiving, thinking, imagining....And you decided you liked that map and were drawn to look at it, read it
by moving
outward.

It makes sense for me to retrace steps. To begin at the beginning, where we all still are, however much we may think we are our ideas.
But if you retrace steps you aren't beginning at the beginning.
What about my account of visual perception do you not agree with ?
Can you give me your version of visual perception ?

And I have taken several college courses in sensory physiology and animal sensory physiology - just cause these topics interested me, also from that 'objective' map approach. I am not saying these maps are wrong, limited perhaps, but that is another topic. it's just that I know what that map is made of. How I made it so to speak when and after I sought it out.
It may be limited but you know perception is warped. Light is not really the thing we experience as light.. if you know what I mean.

If you are moving in the other direction, then on some level you must be building a self, your subjective self, out of facts about the world. Moving inward toward Enmos, quite unlike how I have learned. How fascinating.
I think that is very close to the truth, especially since my own brain is also part of the objective landscape so to speak.

But I suspect our differences will make communicating useless, then. I suspect that what I have written above will simply be confusing for you. You think the map is more real that what I would call the territory. Using Alfred Korzybski's terms.
While the map is largely unknowable it certainly is real and some things can be said about it when mirrored with how we perceive reality.

Then there would be no difference between dreaming and waking which would also include all 'interpretations' of the brain.

Why do you assume the brain cannot operate in different modes, each of which is subjective other than the associated physiological processes ?

So an object doesn't need a subject, in order to exist?
Certainly not.

I'm going through this in the smallest steps I can, somewhere there's a contradiction, but it keeps getting ignored or stepped over, I need to stub a toe on it (not necessarily my toe, but).

P.S. My favourite version of "subject" is: "something that can perceive objects".
I agree with that definition, provided that the something can only perceive an object subjectively as is inherent of perception.
A subject in this sense is really just a special/particular kind of object though.

What's yours? What do you claim experiences "subjective reality" or "objective reality"?
Sensor cells react to particular parts of objective reality which causes impulses that are sent to the brain. The brain interprets them and so fabricates subjective reality.

Where objective reality is concerned, the one that can't be accurately perceived, are there any subjects needed in it for it to exist?
If not, how does a subject perceive objects at all, even inaccurately?
No, and see above.

But if you retrace steps you aren't beginning at the beginning.
What about my account of visual perception do you not agree with ?
Can you give me your version of visual perception ?


I think I made it clear I didn't disagree with it. It is however starting outside yourself, with thoughts, by the way, that your consider subjective.

It may be limited but you know perception is warped. Light is not really the thing we experience as light.. if you know what I mean.
That depends on how you are defining the word 'light'. If you are talking about the experienced phenomenon and define light as that which is experienced, I disagree. My point is that our starting point in the search for knowledge is via experience. The word light comes from an experienced phenomenon. Later scientists came along and called something that is not 'really the thing we experience as light' and yes I do know what you mean. To get to that scientific definition, the idea of it, we had to use perception, terms drawn from perception or experience, thoughts and so on. Now you can come and say that what we experience isn't really light. OK. I know what you mean and you are correct given the way you are using the word light. But the debt to experience is being skipped over. Everything meaningful is derived from experience and can only be communicated about in experiential terms. Now you want to say that what we call light really isn't light. Who gave you control of that word? Why should we prioritize a theorized idea of light over what we directly experience which is the very medium your theory of light is built on?

Again. I am not saying your idea of light - or the idea that you agree with and are repeating is wrong. I am saying it is strange for you to think you can begin there, when in fact you did not. And the history of the word both in our individual lives and in etymology shows this.


I think that is very close to the truth, especially since my own brain is also part of the objective landscape so to speak.
I don't think you understood what I meant.


While the map is largely unknowable it certainly is real and some things can be said about it when mirrored with how we perceive reality. Maps are knowable. Some people would say the objects it describes are not. Experience is knowable. Here it is. It is the root. Any theory that tells you that experience is not real has undermined any possible evidence it has. Specific mistakes can of course be made in the way we interpret out experience. Of course. But it you want to make the whole realm unreal, you have no legs to stand on.

So then.
An objective reality is a reality in which there are objects.

A subjective reality is a reality in which there is the perception of objects.

Is there a mapping or association here already? Is it one to many, as in: one subjective reality containing multiple objects (not multiple objective realities),
or one to one, as in: one subjective to one objective reality?
They are the same thing, right? So an objective reality exists for a subjective one, singular. And a subjective reality "contains" multiple objects, including the subject.

Even with only a single other object to perceive, there would be a subjective reality (containing the single "non-subject", and the single subjective reality, two objects - one of which is a subject, and can "perceive" either).

This objective reality forms, or "projects to" a subjective one which the brain "creates" with neural impulses or signals, persistence, and so on?

Sowhat,

As you have chosen not to respond to my post 78, I assume you no longer argue that
"there would be no difference between dreaming and waking". Brain scans have shown that the differences between sleep, waking, being under hypnosis , meditating and so on is a matter of which parts of the brain are active;it's as simple as that.

You are allowing philosophical speculation to replace common sense.

SowhatThat's what I'm trying to figure out for myself.
Why haven't you got a ready answer for why we perceive ourselves and the external as objects?

[QUOTE=sowhatifit'sdark;


That depends on how you are defining the word 'light'. If you are talking about the experienced phenomenon and define light as that which is experienced, I disagree. My point is that our starting point in the search for knowledge is via experience. The word light comes from an experienced phenomenon. Later scientists came along and called something that is not 'really the thing we experience as light' and yes I do know what you mean. To get to that scientific definition, the idea of it, we had to use perception, terms drawn from perception or experience, thoughts and so on. Now you can come and say that what we experience isn't really light. OK. I know what you mean and you are correct given the way you are using the word light. But the debt to experience is being skipped over. Everything meaningful is derived from experience and can only be communicated about in experiential terms. Now you want to say that what we call light really isn't light. Who gave you control of that word? Why should we prioritize a theorized idea of light over what we directly experience which is the very medium your theory of light is built on?

Again. I am not saying your idea of light - or the idea that you agree with and are repeating is wrong. I am saying it is strange for you to think you can begin there, when in fact you did not. And the history of the word both in our individual lives and in etymology shows this.



I don't think you understood what I meant.


Maps are knowable. Some people would say the objects it describes are not. Experience is knowable. Here it is. It is the root. Any theory that tells you that experience is not real has undermined any possible evidence it has. Specific mistakes can of course be made in the way we interpret out experience. Of course. But it you want to make the whole realm unreal, you have no legs to stand on.[/QUOTE]



As a latecomer, may I make a couple of points. What happens in the brain is clearly subjective and private to each of us.If this were not so, we would all be mind readers. We interpret the world subjectively because we can do no other. A rock is real in some sense but my perception of it is subjective because I do not know what it is to be a rock; I am relying on my senses to provide me with a subjective interpretation,

A bee sees the colour of flowers differently than we do, wheras some animals see everything as shades of grey, which argues for subjectivity.

Light is not a special case. To state the obvious, we know subjectively that light consists of quanta. When we see something ,our perception is the result of how the brain interprets light which reaches it via the retina, and the optic nerve. Light itself corresponds to some sort of objective reality.

We can share our knowledge of the external world by agreeing that a rock is hard, for example. What we are agreeing upon is a quality, hardness, which we attribute to a rock. We are sharing our subjective experience and the fact that we can do this is because human brains are similar in most respects.
Rocks are not aware that they are hard.

Maps are subjective interpretations of an external reality, both of which are experienced subjectively. How can it be otherwise ?

Personal experience is real but no less subjective for all that. Neuronal activity in the brain is objective but cannot be experienced as such.

Neuronal activity in the brain is objective but cannot be experienced as such.Not as such, but it is "experience"; it's what represents consciousness and "subjective reality".

Neuronal activity is to experience as DNA is to genes.

Not as such, but it is "experience"; it's what represents consciousness and "subjective reality".

Neuronal activity is to experience as DNA is to genes.

What neuronal activity represents is irrelevant to the manner in which it may or may not be experienced.

I think I made it clear I didn't disagree with it. It is however starting outside yourself, with thoughts, by the way, that your consider subjective.
Yep ;)

That depends on how you are defining the word 'light'. If you are talking about the experienced phenomenon and define light as that which is experienced, I disagree. My point is that our starting point in the search for knowledge is via experience. The word light comes from an experienced phenomenon. Later scientists came along and called something that is not 'really the thing we experience as light' and yes I do know what you mean. To get to that scientific definition, the idea of it, we had to use perception, terms drawn from perception or experience, thoughts and so on. Now you can come and say that what we experience isn't really light. OK. I know what you mean and you are correct given the way you are using the word light. But the debt to experience is being skipped over. Everything meaningful is derived from experience and can only be communicated about in experiential terms. Now you want to say that what we call light really isn't light. Who gave you control of that word? Why should we prioritize a theorized idea of light over what we directly experience which is the very medium your theory of light is built on?
But science and especially experimentation is devised to touch on something objective. It gives us indications about objective reality. We can say with a 100% certainty what an objective something is but we can come to understand aspects of it by scientific experimentation.

Again. I am not saying your idea of light - or the idea that you agree with and are repeating is wrong. I am saying it is strange for you to think you can begin there, when in fact you did not. And the history of the word both in our individual lives and in etymology shows this.
I agree to an extent. You have to understand that all of it is within me, all of it is ideas and imagination.
I will post a graphic of what I mean later on, it might help :)

I don't think you understood what I meant.
I'm pretty sure I did though. Why do you think that ?

Maps are knowable. Some people would say the objects it describes are not. Experience is knowable. Here it is. It is the root. Any theory that tells you that experience is not real has undermined any possible evidence it has. Specific mistakes can of course be made in the way we interpret out experience. Of course. But it you want to make the whole realm unreal, you have no legs to stand on.
What I meant was that most of the map is missing because those parts are unknowable. It is impossible to have the complete map.

So then.
An objective reality is a reality in which there are objects.

A subjective reality is a reality in which there is the perception of objects.

Is there a mapping or association here already? Is it one to many, as in: one subjective reality containing multiple objects (not multiple objective realities),
or one to one, as in: one subjective to one objective reality?
They are the same thing, right? So an objective reality exists for a subjective one, singular. And a subjective reality "contains" multiple objects, including the subject.

Even with only a single other object to perceive, there would be a subjective reality (containing the single "non-subject", and the single subjective reality, two objects - one of which is a subject, and can "perceive" either).

This objective reality forms, or "projects to" a subjective one which the brain "creates" with neural impulses or signals, persistence, and so on?

:confused:

Reality is objective, and there is only one obviously.
What we perceive of objective reality is subjective. This is what we call subjective reality here, which is somewhat misleading to you perhaps.

As a latecomer, may I make a couple of points. What happens in the brain is clearly subjective and private to each of us.If this were not so, we would all be mind readers. We interpret the world subjectively because we can do no other. A rock is real in some sense but my perception of it is subjective because I do not know what it is to be a rock; I am relying on my senses to provide me with a subjective interpretation,

A bee sees the colour of flowers differently than we do, wheras some animals see everything as shades of grey, which argues for subjectivity.

Light is not a special case. To state the obvious, we know subjectively that light consists of quanta. When we see something ,our perception is the result of how the brain interprets light which reaches it via the retina, and the optic nerve. Light itself corresponds to some sort of objective reality.

We can share our knowledge of the external world by agreeing that a rock is hard, for example. What we are agreeing upon is a quality, hardness, which we attribute to a rock. We are sharing our subjective experience and the fact that we can do this is because human brains are similar in most respects.
Rocks are not aware that they are hard.

Maps are subjective interpretations of an external reality, both of which are experienced subjectively. How can it be otherwise ?

Personal experience is real but no less subjective for all that. Neuronal activity in the brain is objective but cannot be experienced as such.

Thanks, I am no longer fighting alone ;)

What neuronal activity represents is irrelevant to the manner in which it may or may not be experienced.I'd say it's entirely relevant to "the manner in which it may or may not be experienced". We know that there's activity - actually trains of pulses, or spikes -in potential- and waves of activity coming and going.

So "the representation', is what you interpret either as a signal trace on graph paper, or it's the neural "representation" of experience, perception, awareness - all that intangible stuff.

Information is independent of how it gets represented, except that there isn't any information unless there is at least one "representation".

Do you now grasp the meaning of "representation" I'm using? How about the meaning of: "information"?

Reality is objective, and there is only one obviously.
So then. this should make sense: "An objective reality is a reality in which there are objects." --? Does it make sense, or you don't see what it says?
What we perceive of objective reality is subjective. Does that mean: "A subjective reality is a reality in which there is the perception of objects. " ---? Any closer? You do mean that each subject sees only one objective reality, right?
This is what we call subjective reality here, which is somewhat misleading to you perhaps.
The misleading part, for me, is how this "subjective reality" manages to pop up suddenly, from your model of an "objective reality". How do you conjure it?

Let's see:
" an objective reality exists for a subjective one, singular.
And a subjective reality "contains" multiple objects, including the subject."

Does this concur at all with your model (the one that you claim is "what we call subjective reality here", wherever "here" is)?

"... with only a single other object to perceive, there would be a subjective reality (containing the single "non-subject", and the single subjective reality, two objects - one of which is a subject, and can "perceive" either)."

A subjective reality exists if there is at least a single observer and a single external object - can this external object be the subject, or does there have to be at least one external object that isn't a part of the subject (whatever that might mean)?

"This objective reality forms, or "projects to" a subjective one which the brain "creates" with neural impulses or signals, persistence, and so on?"

IOW, when does this "interaction" you describe of the senses with external stimuli, become subjective, and not objective? In which part of the brain? The neuronal assemblies behind the retina? The optic nerve? The visual cortex? The sum of all neuronal processing involved with "creating" this subjective reality?

Can you locate it? Or is it like some kind of "adjoint space" that is operated on by objective reality, which is where energy and matter are?

I agree to an extent. You have to understand that all of it is within me, all of it is ideas and imagination.
I will post a graphic of what I mean later on, it might help :)
I just find it odd that you consider your ideas, however come to - in your case I would guess via the reading of and mulling over the scientific experiments and conclusions of others - are more real than experienced phenomena. Without the latter you could not have the former. Without the latter being a valid and truth offering contact with 'objective things' you could not have your experiments or anything to mull over. And thus you can end up saying that light is really what we experience, even though this 'light' that we experience was the first doorway to the one you think is 'more real'. If it is more real how can the doorway through which we reach it be unreal?


What I meant was that most of the map is missing because those parts are unknowable. It is impossible to have the complete map.
I agree utterly with this. I think it is scientists, or perhaps their followers, who have the most trouble with this one. They are much more likely to feel they can gauge the liklihood of phenomena that don't seem to sit with current theories, despite what the history of science itself says about how current theories may be limited.

For example. You know somehow that dreams are not in contact with 'objective reality'. How could you possibly know this?

If current ideas about the brain and sleep and locality and so are absolutely limiting and causation happens only in the forms we have discovered, well then your ground is pretty solid. But you can't really know this.

My dreams seem to be in contact with objective reality, sometimes. They are accurate maps. Perhaps even on some level they are the imagistic and felt results of processes not unlike scientific experimentation, amongst other things.

There are always things in between. In the eye there is the lens, the medium - generally air - the fluid in the eye and so on. All of which distorts, separates the subject from the object in both TIME and SPACE and distorts, edits, etc. But somehow you know that dreams cannot be direct perceptions in some process not yet found by science, and despite examples where in dreams people seemed to come in direct contact with objective reality - developed theories, ideas and explanations for objects that withstood later testing.

Enmos,
this was a key sentence.
Light is not really the thing we experience as light..
There are a lot of assumptions in this.
And I would say, you are beginning backwards. As if you were born with that map.

It seems clear to me that any process that helps me navigate, utilize, create, predict objects or their behavior is to some degree objective.

Much is being made of science and how this process gives us a somewhat objective map of the world. Of what is out there.

I can do this with imagination. I find myself in a power outage and imagine the room. A completely subjective process. Neverthess I make my way through the room without banging my knee in the dark. How could it be completely subjective?

And so it was that at least some dreams have helped people navigate, predict etc. the world of objects. In fact if you get rather good with symbols you can find more information about the outside world in dreams.

But even if you want to relegate as much of it as you can to the subjective, I really cannot see how one can say it is completely subjective.

Is the possibility of complementary or diverse methodologies so frightening?

I'd say it's entirely relevant to "the manner in which it may or may not be experienced". We know that there's activity - actually trains of pulses, or spikes -in potential- and waves of activity coming and going.

So "the representation', is what you interpret either as a signal trace on graph paper, or it's the neural "representation" of experience, perception, awareness - all that intangible stuff.

Information is independent of how it gets represented, except that there isn't any information unless there is at least one "representation".

Do you now grasp the meaning of "representation" I'm using? How about the meaning of: "information"?

Whatever it represents, it is experienced subjectively. Is that so difficult to understand ?

[QUOTE=sowhatifit'sdark;1786226]It seems clear to me that any process that helps me navigate, utilize, create, predict objects or their behavior is to some degree objective.
Much is being made of science and how this process gives us a somewhat objective map of the world. Of what is out there.

I can do this with imagination. I find myself in a power outage and imagine the room. A completely subjective process. Neverthess I make my way through the room without banging my knee in the dark. How could it be completely subjective?

And so it was that at least some dreams have helped people navigate, predict etc. the world of objects. In fact if you get rather good with symbols you can find more information about the outside world in dreams.

But even if you want to relegate as much of it as you can to the subjective, I really cannot see how one can say it is completely subjective.

Is the possibility of complementary or diverse methodologies so frightening?

What does it mean to say that a process is " to some degree objective " ? There are no degrees of objectivity. You experience an objective world subjectively; that's it.

What seems clear to you is beside the point.

So then. this should make sense: "An objective reality is a reality in which there are objects." --? Does it make sense, or you don't see what it says?
Correct, but your approach is a bit labored..

Does that mean: "A subjective reality is a reality in which there is the perception of objects. " ---? Any closer? You do mean that each subject sees only one objective reality, right?
Subjective reality is kind of similar to experience. Subjective reality is just any 'colored' representation of (a part of) objective reality.
Subject don't see objective reality. And there is just one reality; objective reality. Only our experience/perception of it varies.

The misleading part, for me, is how this "subjective reality" manages to pop up suddenly, from your model of an "objective reality". How do you conjure it?
See above.

Let's see:
" an objective reality exists for a subjective one, singular.
And a subjective reality "contains" multiple objects, including the subject."
No that's not right. Objective reality contains everything, including the subject. The subjects experience of objective reality is subjective 'reality'.

Does this concur at all with your model (the one that you claim is "what we call subjective reality here", wherever "here" is)?
'Here', like in this thread.

"... with only a single other object to perceive, there would be a subjective reality (containing the single "non-subject", and the single subjective reality, two objects - one of which is a subject, and can "perceive" either)."

A subjective reality exists if there is at least a single observer and a single external object - can this external object be the subject, or does there have to be at least one external object that isn't a part of the subject (whatever that might mean)?
The external object can be the subject.
Where did you get that quote ? You seem to be subscribing it to me..

"This objective reality forms, or "projects to" a subjective one which the brain "creates" with neural impulses or signals, persistence, and so on?"

IOW, when does this "interaction" you describe of the senses with external stimuli, become subjective, and not objective? In which part of the brain? The neuronal assemblies behind the retina? The optic nerve? The visual cortex? The sum of all neuronal processing involved with "creating" this subjective reality?

Can you locate it? Or is it like some kind of "adjoint space" that is operated on by objective reality, which is where energy and matter are?
To begin with, the senses filter the external stimuli; they can only detect a small part of objective reality. This is in essence where it begins.
Then the brain takes this data and strips it of irrelevant data. Then the remaining data is interpreted using memory and knowledge after which it is presented to the consciousness as subjective reality.
I can locate all the brain areas if you want, except consciousness.

I just find it odd that you consider your ideas, however come to - in your case I would guess via the reading of and mulling over the scientific experiments and conclusions of others - are more real than experienced phenomena. Without the latter you could not have the former. Without the latter being a valid and truth offering contact with 'objective things' you could not have your experiments or anything to mull over. And thus you can end up saying that light is really what we experience, even though this 'light' that we experience was the first doorway to the one you think is 'more real'. If it is more real how can the doorway through which we reach it be unreal?
Agreed. I don't see a problem with that..

I agree utterly with this. I think it is scientists, or perhaps their followers, who have the most trouble with this one. They are much more likely to feel they can gauge the liklihood of phenomena that don't seem to sit with current theories, despite what the history of science itself says about how current theories may be limited.

For example. You know somehow that dreams are not in contact with 'objective reality'. How could you possibly know this?
Maybe there is a confusing to what either of us meant with dreaming. The physiological process of dreaming (brain activity) is objective; the brain is part of objective reality. What is subjective is what we experience of the process, namely the dream.

If current ideas about the brain and sleep and locality and so are absolutely limiting and causation happens only in the forms we have discovered, well then your ground is pretty solid. But you can't really know this.
Well, that raises the question "Can we KNOW anything ?". I think a good case can be made that we can't know anything with a 100% certainty. It would leave us dead in the water..

My dreams seem to be in contact with objective reality, sometimes. They are accurate maps. Perhaps even on some level they are the imagistic and felt results of processes not unlike scientific experimentation, amongst other things.

There are always things in between. In the eye there is the lens, the medium - generally air - the fluid in the eye and so on. All of which distorts, separates the subject from the object in both TIME and SPACE and distorts, edits, etc. But somehow you know that dreams cannot be direct perceptions in some process not yet found by science, and despite examples where in dreams people seemed to come in direct contact with objective reality - developed theories, ideas and explanations for objects that withstood later testing.
Dreams are based on previous experiences, not on current ones..
Maybe some direct perceptions are interwoven, like sounds..
But other than that, if you dream about being in your old school building for example how can the visual experience of that be directly based on objective reality ? Rather it is based on previous experiences of objective reality, thus indirectly based on on objective reality.

Enmos,
this was a key sentence.

There are a lot of assumptions in this.
And I would say, you are beginning backwards. As if you were born with that map.

Well there are different levels to it of course.
What is light ? Obviously the word indicates that what we experience visually. But this definition arose without knowledge of what it is that gives rise to this visual experience.

Maybe it would be better to say that photons are not the same as that which we call light. Of course you could say something is wrong about that as well.. it's like I have said before, language is not helping here..

It seems clear to me that any process that helps me navigate, utilize, create, predict objects or their behavior is to some degree objective.
No, the subjective processes have evolved to work for you, to create a dependable map of the world around you. This doesn't mean it is objective.

Much is being made of science and how this process gives us a somewhat objective map of the world. Of what is out there.

I can do this with imagination. I find myself in a power outage and imagine the room. A completely subjective process. Neverthess I make my way through the room without banging my knee in the dark. How could it be completely subjective?
Because your brain remembers the basic layout of the room, it created a dependable map of it in your head.

And so it was that at least some dreams have helped people navigate, predict etc. the world of objects. In fact if you get rather good with symbols you can find more information about the outside world in dreams.
Sure, but it's all worked out in your head. The brain is pretty good at predicting stuff.

But even if you want to relegate as much of it as you can to the subjective, I really cannot see how one can say it is completely subjective.
Then we might have a misunderstanding of what the word objective means..

Is the possibility of complementary or diverse methodologies so frightening?
I don't know what that means in relation to the matter at hand.

Subjective reality is kind of similar to experience. Subjective reality is just any 'colored' representation of (a part of) objective reality.
Subject don't see objective reality. And there is just one reality; objective reality. Only our experience/perception of it varies.Subjective reality and experience, huh? These just appear somewhere in the "conscious" brain?
If a subject doesn't see "objective reality" how can any subject say there is one? How can you say it exists if you don't see it?
Objective reality contains everything, including the subject. The subjects experience of objective reality is subjective 'reality'.How do you know that "objective reality" contains "everything"?
The external object can be the subject.So a subjective reality can consist of a single subject, who perceives themselves as a single object, then.
This is important, even if you can't see why. I'll get back to this though, with any luck. (hah!)
To begin with, the senses filter the external stimuli; they can only detect a small part of objective reality. This is in essence where it begins.Subjective reality "begins", with the detection of stimuli by the "senses"?
Then the brain takes this data and strips it of irrelevant data. Then the remaining data is interpreted using memory and knowledge after which it is presented to the consciousness as subjective reality.Ah, it gets "presented" to "the consciousness".
And it's already subjective? Or what you mean with "as subjective reality", is what exactly?

It "becomes" subjective, when it gets "presented"?
I can locate all the brain areas if you want, except consciousness.So this "conscious" part of the brain is like an adjoint space then? Something that can only be "found" by determining what operations are allowed in the space?

As usual , you are having a hard time coming to terms with a straightforward explanation. This seems to happen because you are more interested in semantics and nitpicking than in making an effort to understand what is being said.
One last time:

What we experience is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. If you ask how we know there is an objective reality, if we cannot see it, the alternative is to assume that there is nothing there to be experienced, If you wish to take that view, you are in a minority of one.

Think of Plato's cave. What the inhabitants of the cave saw were shadows of reality. So, if we follow your question to its logical conclusion, you would want to know how we can know there is an object corresponding to a shadow because we cannot see the object. A silly question.

Objective reality consists of everything external to ourselves, whether we can perceive it or not. It includes our bodies. Have you an alternative explanation ?

As a single subject I can subjectivly perceive my objective body. My perception can only be subjective. I have no idea what it is like to be a foot. Have you ?

Subjective reality is the end result a process whereby the brain interprets the external world. The process begins when our sensory apparatus is stimulated.

I become aware/conscious of an object when my brain has interpreted the associated data, not before. I believe this is what Enmos is saying but you seem to be hung up on the word "presented" . I think it's perfectly legitimate to say presented which, for me would carry the same meaning as entered. You are looking to find fault and quibble without making an effort to understand what is being said. What is presented to consciousness is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. Do you need someone to draw you a picture ?

Presented to consciousness, enters consciousness convey the same meaning.

People who know something of neuroscience are hesitant to talk of consciousness except in very broad terms. It is not clear what consciousness is other than to say it is some faculty of the brain. Professor Susan Greenfield said in a recent article that it may take fifty years before we know what sort of questions to ask and what answers would be meaningful. If you wish to rush into a minefield, feel free to do so; just don't expect any answers

Subjective reality and experience, huh? These just appear somewhere in the "conscious" brain?
If a subject doesn't see "objective reality" how can any subject say there is one? How can you say it exists if you don't see it?
How do you know that "objective reality" contains "everything"?
So a subjective reality can consist of a single subject, who perceives themselves as a single object, then.
This is important, even if you can't see why. I'll get back to this though, with any luck. (hah!)
Subjective reality "begins", with the detection of stimuli by the "senses"?
Ah, it gets "presented" to "the consciousness".
And it's already subjective? Or what you mean with "as subjective reality", is what exactly?

It "becomes" subjective, when it gets "presented"?
So this "conscious" part of the brain is like an adjoint space then? Something that can only be "found" by determining what operations are allowed in the space?

You know so little, and yet you are so arrogant.
I am done talking to you.. you seem deliberately obtuse.
Good luck.

As usual , you are having a hard time coming to terms with a straightforward explanation. This seems to happen because you are more interested in semantics and nitpicking than in making an effort to understand what is being said.
One last time:

What we experience is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. If you ask how we know there is an objective reality, if we cannot see it, the alternative is to assume that there is nothing there to be experienced, If you wish to take that view, you are in a minority of one.

Think of Plato's cave. What the inhabitants of the cave saw were shadows of reality. So, if we follow your question to its logical conclusion, you would want to know how we can know there is an object corresponding to a shadow because we cannot see the object. A silly question.

Objective reality consists of everything external to ourselves, whether we can perceive it or not. It includes our bodies. Have you an alternative explanation ?

As a single subject I can subjectivly perceive my objective body. My perception can only be subjective. I have no idea what it is like to be a foot. Have you ?

Subjective reality is the end result a process whereby the brain interprets the external world. The process begins when our sensory apparatus is stimulated.

I become aware/conscious of an object when my brain has interpreted the associated data, not before. I believe this is what Enmos is saying but you seem to be hung up on the word "presented" . I think it's perfectly legitimate to say presented which, for me would carry the same meaning as entered. You are looking to find fault and quibble without making an effort to understand what is being said. What is presented to consciousness is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. Do you need someone to draw you a picture ?

Presented to consciousness, enters consciousness convey the same meaning.

People who know something of neuroscience are hesitant to talk of consciousness except in very broad terms. It is not clear what consciousness is other than to say it is some faculty of the brain. Professor Susan Greenfield said in a recent article that it may take fifty years before we know what sort of questions to ask and what answers would be meaningful. If you wish to rush into a minefield, feel free to do so; just don't expect any answers

Thanks Myles at least