Objectivity.

[Wizard of Whatever]

It is contended in the “Tao Te Ching”, “Water is fluid, soft and yielding. But water will wear away rock, which is rigid and cannot yield."

It's a good read, but needs allegorical understanding.

 

[Sarkus]

You alleged that I made several errors. You wrote "No...", "No...." in response to what I wrote, which was correct and error free. You assumed you were correcting me.

What you wrote was NOT correct or error free, as I have argued, with regard the philosophical terms you were employing. That you still think you are correct and error free on the matter despite the efforts at correction is, well, just trolling on your part. Please stop trolling.

Please note, dear readers, that this poster can’t bring himself to admit that he is in error, or bring himself to correct what he wrote. Or even to provide rationale for continuing to support his own incorrect usage of the terms. Maybe that is because this poster has some chip on his shoulder about who it is correcting him in this instance? Note that he could always educate himself on what terms mean when discussing philosophical matters, but either he chooses not to, or he does and simply can't bring himself to acknowledge his mistake. Out of spite? Out of stubbornness? Who knows. But, well, here we are, dear readers.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

As far as observation goes, it really depends on what is being observed.

If you observe that you feel hungry, that's a subjective observation. If you observe that the moon is in its waxing gibbous phase, that is objective.

Feeling hungry is just as objective to the inner awareness as the moon is to vision.

The difference is that other people can confirm your objective experiences, whereas nobody has access to your subjective experiences.

If I say I am hungry, any body can understand the experience.

Every individual has their own subjective experience. However, facts about the world that everyone can observe independently and agree on (in principle) are objective.

Personal objective experiences really need no verification. If someone else has had them, that is verification same as a repeatable experiment.

 

[Sarkus]

Olga, if they were born deaf they would not not be able to judge anything at all involving sound, they would not be part of the equation. Why do you think that is a relevant argument?

The argument goes along that lines that if it is dependent upon the experience of a person then it is subjective, and if it is independent then objective. Music, so the argument goes, is dependent upon the experience of an individual - i.e. no experience = no music.
However, this is a category mistake that confuses access to a thing with the objective existence of that thing. E.g. radio waves exist even if you have no receiver to pick them up.

It also highlights that music has both subjective and objective aspects. Subjective is the emotional impact, the value we might place on it etc. Objective would be the structure, the rhythm, the notes, the existence of the musical work itself. That one can not hear it, or see it on paper, does not alter those objective properties, it merely means one does not have access to them. They are without a receiver in a sea of radio waves.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Olga, if they were born deaf they would not not be able to judge anything at all involving sound, they would not be part of the equation. Why do you think that is a relevant argument?

They could perceive sound vibrations with their whole bodies. As a musician you should be able to appreciate this

 

[Olga]

They could perceive sound vibrations with their whole bodies. As a musician you should be able to appreciate this

А как насчёт света и красок?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

A passenger on a stationary train "feels" like they are moving when in fact they are observing the train next to them move.
Completely false, it is the way our brain has been trained.

Objectivity= what is real
Subjectivity= how our brain feels about it.

Only the second one can get it wrong.

Objectivity is what is perceived, subjectivity is what the mine thinks about it.

 

[Sarkus]

Feeling hungry is just as objective to the inner awareness as the moon is to vision.

If I say I am hungry, any body can understand the experience.

Not everyone has the same experience, though. Some get irritable, others don't. Some have stomach rumbles, others don't. When people "feel hungry" is also different. When you hear someone saying they feel hungry, chances are that you just assume they are experiencing what you would feel. There are common symptoms, sure, but it is a mistake to put this down as in any way being objective. They would just be a shared subjective view.

The state of being hungry is objective, though. We can measure it. We can assess it. There's even various biological definitions for it that do not rely on subjective criteria.

Personal objective experiences really need no verification. If someone else has had them, that is verification same as a repeatable experiment.

There are no personal objective experiences, not in strict philosophical terms. There are subjective experiences caused by objective phenomena. Hunger is a good example of that: biological, measurable, repeatable causes, leading to subjective experiences.

 

[Pinball1970]

They could perceive sound vibrations with their whole bodies. As a musician you should be able to appreciate this

Scales, key changes, passing notes, chords?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Scales, key changes, passing notes, chords?

All of them in the form of sound vibrations perceived by the whole body. Do you really thing pressure waves can only be perceived by ears.

 

[Pinball1970]

Objectivity is what is perceived, subjectivity is what the mine thinks about it.

Either your train moves or it doesn't, you feel like it does because you see the other train move, not yours. You are objectively wrong.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Either your train moves or it doesn't, you feel like it does because you see the other train move, not yours. You are objectively wrong.

Not if you can separate sight from feeling in your awareness. It just like separating cause and effect.

 

[billvon]

The mind has nothing to do with it. Inner awareness is not the mind.

So what is "inner awareness?"

 

[Pinball1970]

All of them in the form of sound vibrations perceived by the whole body. Do you really thing pressure waves can only be perceived by ears.

What if you play soft?

 

[Pinball1970]

Not if you can separate sight from feeling in your awareness. It just like separating cause and effect.

This is a yes or no situation, does your train move or not?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

What if you play soft?

I would say depends on distance from source and the sensitivity of the perceiver.

 

[billvon]

Other animals deal calmly with the death of their fellow animals.

Not the intelligent ones. Dolphins, chimpanzees, elephants and dogs all mourn their dead.

What's the point of these experiences? Well, from a scientific perspective?

Compassion is a trait that helps a society survive. Compassion requires you to value other beings, and be able to see yourself in their experiences. Thus, losing someone is an acutely felt loss.

 

[Pinball1970]

I would say depends on distance from source and the sensitivity of the perceiver.

There is this deaf percussionist, I think she's Scottish. Fair enough. Vibration from the sticks and drums. If there are people who can tell the difference between different types of music, songs scales etc just using their bodies then that is news to me.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

This is a yes or no situation, does your train move or not?

I'd say no, not in your example, but I have never had that experience.

 

[Seattle]

The argument goes along that lines that if it is dependent upon the experience of a person then it is subjective, and if it is independent then objective. Music, so the argument goes, is dependent upon the experience of an individual - i.e. no experience = no music.
However, this is a category mistake that confuses access to a thing with the objective existence of that thing. E.g. radio waves exist even if you have no receiver to pick them up.

It also highlights that music has both subjective and objective aspects. Subjective is the emotional impact, the value we might place on it etc. Objective would be the structure, the rhythm, the notes, the existence of the musical work itself. That one can not hear it, or see it on paper, does not alter those objective properties, it merely means one does not have access to them. They are without a receiver in a sea of radio waves.

That's misusing the logic behind the distinction that you are raising in philosophy isn't it?

Calling an observation subjective is true in an absolute (God like) sense but if 10 people observe the sun coming up in the east, that's pretty objective. It 10 people observe a flying cow, that isn't objective. It's about probabilities and prior factual cases.

You say if an individual sees it, it's subjective but the fact that it is there is objective but you can't establish that fact other than with human observations and probabilities. You can use test equipment but that's designed by humans and the data is interpreted by humans.

There is a use case in philosophy for the point you are making, that being humans see patterns that sometimes aren't there, draw false conclusions, etc. But to say that it is always subjective but the fact is objective, really has no useful meaning or relevance, even in philosophy, right?