Subject / Object Distinction

[Wizard22]

It's not a relationship if the sugar was never experienced. The experience is the relationship. So I don't see how something that doesn't exist can be objective. If no observers existed then sugar would just be sugar and there would never be any sweetness.

Everything is a relationship - including sugar. Sugar is a molecule and molecules are a relationship between atoms. Atoms are relationships between protons and electrons, and protons are a relationship between quarks. We will find that quarks are also a relationship, so it is relationships all the way down. There never is anything "physical", just relationships, process, or information all the way down.

So if there aren't any observers then the relationship between sugar and observers does not exist and therefore cannot be objective. It makes no sense to say that something that does not exist is objective.

You're not looking at Objectivity correctly. It's not about looking what does not exist, but about what does already exist, objectively. You really need to plant the premise in your mind, that sugar, as a chemical compound, exists without your subjective experience. Pretend like you've never tasted sugar and never will. Does your ignorance then, in retrospect, precede the existence of sugar, as an experience, or as a chemical compound? No, because it existed before you were ever aware of it, and it will exist while you are unconscious, and long after you or anybody else lived and died.

The worlds is not contingent upon our awareness. Our awareness is contingent upon the world.

Which you only experience indirectly through their actions or words, but they can lie. So, like I said, all of your knowledge comes from your experiences.

They can also tell the truth. My knowledge comes from my experiences and others' experiences. My knowledge comes from your experiences, right now, as you communicate to me.

I don't see how any of this answers my question about what form your knowledge takes. How do you know that you know anything? What are you referring to when you say "I know..."

Potential, hypothetical, and theoretical are just ideas that stem from our ignorance. They are imaginary concepts that have no reality outside of our minds. Either processes interact or they don't. If they don't then those interactions do not exist. There is no potential, only what exists. To say that there is potential is to just be saying you are ignorant to the facts what is, or will be the case. What will be the case is dependent upon what currently is the case. What is, what has been, or what will be has already been determined and our knowledge of it all is lacking, so it seems like there are probabilities, randomness and potential because we are ignorant of what is, what has been, and what will be. This is basic Determinism.

Everything is a matter of belief, especially knowledge.

There is no 100% certain belief—insuchthat a belief is Absolutely True, Omniscient. Everything can be doubted, rejected by the mind, which is the basis of Theory. When I say "I know", myself and most people mean, I believe at 99.999% or 95% or 90%. I'm pretty sure of this information. Or I'm certain (above 90%) of this information. Or I will act on this information. Certainty, knowledge, belief, are ranges of probability. What people consider "100% true", are their core beliefs, values. These are more dangerous, because they're dogmatic. People presume as-if their knowledge is 100%. That's the difference between a closed-mind (not accepting new information) versus an open-mind.

Knowledge, to me, represents tested-tried-and-true beliefs. It doesn't mean they're 100%, but they're above 90% at least. I act on my knowledge, everyday. Everybody does.

No they aren't. Words are composed of scribbles or sounds. You see and hear them just like you can see and hear a train coming down the tracks. You learn a language by observing how it is used and then testing it out yourself and making adjustments based on your visual and auditory feedback. If languages were not objective then there would be no way we could translate one language to another, but we can, and do. Sure, there will be trends in certain groups to use an existing language differently, but we can still translate what they mean to other words, or else what are they actually saying? We all share the same world, so if we expect to communicate with each other about our experiences of this shared world, then we need to agree on the scribbles and sounds being used to do just that. If we are both using language subjectively then we are essentially talking past each other.

Just because language was used one way "originally", doesn't mean that we can't, or haven't, changed its use to reflect our current understanding of the world. We don't even need to change the language or come up with new words to reflect our new knowledge that our beliefs are about the world, not actually the world. Instead of saying "All Republicans are evil", we say, "I believe all Republicans are evil", and "All Republicans are evil" can be taken as shorthand for "I believe all Republicans are evil". In these cases we are talking about our beliefs, not the things we have beliefs about, which could be mistaken and proven wrong with other observations. Knowledge and beliefs are established by past observations and can change with new observations.

You're missing the point. How do people intuit what each-other means? How do people judge and decide-upon intentions? That has little to do with language...because it happens before language. It happens before a stranger speaks to you or I. You look at somebody, and your mind immediately forms unconscious and subconscious biases. For example, most people presume those in their own neighborhood, street, block, will speak their same language. So it can be surprising when somebody arrives who does not.

Communication is the medium we use to intuit meaning between peoples/Subjects.

What is intuited, are the Objects referred to by and through language. How people understand that, also demonstrates their understanding of Objectivity in general.

I never said that objects are distinct from nature. I hope I have made the point that nothing is distinct from nature, including our beliefs and experiences.

Any object that is distinct from our understanding and experience is to just say that there are things in the world that our limited observations can access. We cannot even talk about such things as we can only talk about what we have experienced, not what we haven't.

That's not true. People often speak about what they have not experienced.

There are parts of the universe that do not interact with other parts, but that doesn't mean that because I can image that they do that there is any actual potential that they will. My only point here is we can only ever talk about our experiences and our experiences are relationships with other objects. Just because some object hasn't been experienced doesn't mean it is different than objects that have. We're just talking about different relationships. There is nothing special about experiences either as they are just a type of relationship, and everything is a relationship. So the S-O distinction is meaningless because there is nothing special about unexperienced and experienced objects (relationships) - just different types of relationships.

No, the point I was/am making, is that an object that exists, and is never experienced, demonstrates the S-O distinction, and how vital it is to understand the difference. You and I can use what we do know about Existence, the Universe, Physics, Chemical compositions, science, logic, reason, intuition...we can use it all, to reach out beyond what we directly experience, here and now. We can imagine that 10,000 years ago, Earth was probably this or that way. We can imagine that, across the galaxy, moons, stars, and planets are somewhat like our own.

Or better yet, we can imagine that long after we die, 10,000 years from now, our lives, our experiences, the world as we experience now, were certainly true, and real, and that just because those in the future didn't experience it, yet we now it happens right now. And because of this, just as any person can be as sure of their own Subjectivity, they too can be sure Objectively by the inverse relationship.

Whatever happens right now, is permanent, cannot be deleted or removed, and is as distinct as any other time and moment in Existence.

Because matter cannot be created; and it cannot be destroyed.

I don't believe reality is based on our subjectivity. I believe that reality is based on relationships of which our minds, or experiences are just one type of relationship. I also use the terms "process" or "information". Information includes the notion of aboutness. Our experiences are instinctively understood to be about the world. Effects are about their causes. Information is every where causes leave effects. Our experiences and beliefs are both effects of prior causes and causes of the effects they leave in the world.

From my perspective, as I grow older, I place reality far less in the Subject, and far more in the Object, than I had before...

[Wizard22]

There is no perspective from "beind" the image. Because the image is not 3 dimensional.

You are playing mind-games with yourself.

ALL observers see only this perspective. Theperspective where there is a thumb on the right, not on the left.

Print out that image on a clear piece of paper so two different Subjects can see it, one in front, one in back.

One person (in front) will say it's a left hand. The other person (in back) will say it's a right hand.

So...you're wrong again Skepdick, sorry. Better luck next time!

[Skepdick]

There is no perspective from "beind" the image. Because the image is not 3 dimensional.

You are playing mind-games with yourself.

ALL observers see only this perspective. Theperspective where there is a thumb on the right, not on the left.

Print out that image on a clear piece of paper so two different Subjects can see it, one in front, one in back.

One person (in front) will say it's a left hand. The other person (in back) will say it's a right hand.

So...you're wrong again Skepdick, sorry. Better luck next time!

That's quite the mental gymnastics you are playing there... But ok.

I printed the image.

From "the front" I see a hand.
From "the back" I don't see a hand. because the paper is not translucent.

You keep manufacturing perspectives that don't exist. Almost like you are playing mind-games with yourself.

[Wizard22]

I said "a clear piece of paper".

Or re-write the mirror image on the backside.

The point is, "Left or Right", any direction is based on Subjective perspectives. Objectively, Left and Right are both true. You're not understanding this, because you're only 'seeing' from your own, single perspective. You're not imagining another perspective. Or, you're not accepting another Subjective perspective as true.

[Skepdick]

I said "a clear piece of paper".

Paper isn't clear.

Do you need more help with moving those goal posts?

Or re-write the mirror image on the backside.

So you want me to print the image; invert it and then print it again?

That's obviously not the same image. That's an inversion of the original.

The point is, "Left or Right", any direction is based on Subjective perspectives. Objectively, Left and Right are both true.

Perspectives? Plural? How many coordinates in spacetime do you currently occupy?

From where you are looking (and from where everybody is looking) that thumb is on the right.
This is objectively true from any and ALL perspectives looking at that image.

The perspectives from which that is not true don't exist. Because that image has no "back" side.

You're not understanding this, because you're only 'seeing' from your own, single perspective. You're not imagining another perspective. Or, you're not accepting another Subjective perspective as true.

I understand it just fine. You want to pretend that you are in two places at the same time.

There's one of you "in front" of the image. And another one of you "behind" the image.

LIke I said - you are inventing perspectives that don't exist. You are playing mind games with yourself.

You could've just said 'rotate the image in your mind'....

[Wizard22]

Paper isn't clear.

Do you need more help with moving those goal posts?

It's not moving the goal posts when you skipped over what I said.

So you want me to print the image; invert it and then print it again?

That's obviously not the same image. That's an inversion of the original.

It's not an inversion; it's the same image.

Perspectives? Plural? How many coordinates in spacetime do you currently occupy?

A lot.

How about you?

From where you are looking (and from where everybody is looking) that thumb is on the right.
This is objectively true from any and ALL perspectives looking at that image.

The perspectives from which that is not true don't exist. Because that image has no "back" side.

It does have a backside.

I understand it just fine. You want to pretend that you are in two places at the same time.

There's one of you "in front" of the image. And another one of you "behind" the image.

LIke I said - you are inventing perspectives that don't exist. You are playing mind games with yourself.

You could've just said 'rotate the image in your mind'....

Which way is this image spinning, Skepdick, left-to-right, or right-to-left?

[Skepdick]

Paper isn't clear.

Do you need more help with moving those goal posts?

It's not moving the goal posts when you skipped over what I said.

It's very much moving the goal posts when the digital image on your screen suddenly turned into something that needs printing.

On "clear" paper.
Or printing twice. One mirror image - one original.

It's not an inversion; it's the same image.

So left and right are all the same to you? I always suspected you aren't very smart...

A lot.

How about you?

At any given time? Exactly one. Always.

The image you showed us has the thumb on the right. And anybody who says otherwise is lying.

It does have a backside.

OK.So you definitely don't understand how digital images work...

Which way is this image spinning, Skepdick, left-to-right, or right-to-left?

So more goal posts moving now? Who says it's "spinning"? It's just a series of images producing a psychological effect.

You are really incompetent at mind games, you know...

[Wizard22]

You claimed that both perspectives are mine. They don't need to be. They can be two different people viewing the same image, from different angles, and contradict each-other while both are true (from their subjective perspective). As you said, you only embody "One" perspective. So the contradiction applies to only you. You cannot imagine another subject's perspective.

That doesn't sound very smart to me. It sounds like you're firmly entrenched in your own Ego, and cannot imagine another's. You certainly cannot understand another's contradictory position, although it is relatively true for them.

[Skepdick]

You claimed that both perspectives are mine. They don't need to be. They can be two different people viewing the same image

But there's only one of you speaking. Who's the second person? Who elected you to represent their perspective? Can I speak to them direclty? You are incompetent at representing them.

from different angles, and contradict each-other while both are true (from their subjective perspective).

Can I speak to the person who holds the perspective that the thumb in your image is on the left? Thanks.

As you said, you only embody "One" perspective. So the contradiction applies to only you. You cannot imagine another subject's perspective.

Correct. I can't imagine any subject who can view "the back" of your image. largely because the image has no back and that the perspective you are talking about doesn't exist. And neither does the person holding it.

It's just your imagination running wild.

But you can prove me wrong by pointing out anybody that's holding that perspective.

That doesn't sound very smart to me. It sounds like you're firmly entrenched in your own Ego, and cannot imagine another's. You certainly cannot understand another's contradictory position, although it is relatively true for them.

Well sure. It may be incredbly dumb. But nowhere near as dumb as you.

The reason I can't understand another's "contradictory" position is because the contradiction arises from there existing a perspective which doesn't exist. The contradiction arises from there existing people holding perspectives which can't be held.

See, I can imagine rotating the image 180 degrees around the vertical axis to move the thumb from right to left, But I can't imagine anybody viewing "the back" of a digital image.

If you were smart you'd see that. But you aren't.

[Wizard22]

You claimed that both perspectives are mine. They don't need to be. They can be two different people viewing the same image

But there's only one of you speaking. Who's the second person? Who elected you to represent their perspective? Can I speak to them direclty? You are incompetent at representing them.

from different angles, and contradict each-other while both are true (from their subjective perspective).

Can I speak to the person who holds the perspective that the thumb in your image is on the left? Thanks.

You wouldn't need to if you understood my example the first time.

Correct. I can't imagine any subject who can view "the back" of your image. largely because the image has no back and that the perspective you are talking about doesn't exist. And neither does the person holding it.

It's just your imagination running wild.

But you can prove me wrong by pointing out the person who's holding that perspective.

I just don't think you could understand unless I demonstrated my example to you physically...but even then, I'm having doubts.

You don't seem to understand or accept other people's perspectives. So you don't really understand Subjectivity, except your own.

Well sure. It may be incredbly dumb. But nowhere near as dumb as you.

The reason I can't understand another's "contradictory" position is because the contradiction arises from there existing a perspective which doesn't exist. The contradiction arises from there existing people holding perspectives which can't be held.

See, I can imagine rotating the image 180 degrees around the vertical axis to move the thumb from right to left, But I can't imagine anybody viewing "the back" of a digital image.

If you were smart you'd see that. But you aren't.

You're just covering for the fact that you misread, and/or misunderstood, what I said from the start, a clear piece of paper.

[Skepdick]

You wouldn't need to if you understood my example the first time.

I can't understand your example because you are advocating for a perspective that doesn't exist.

So you aren't holding your perspective.
You aren't holding anybody else's perspective.

What perspective are you holding then?

I just don't think you could understand unless I demonstrated my example to you physically...but even then, I'm having doubts.

See. There you are. Confused again. Your "demonstration" is impossible. Physically. Because digital images don't have a "back" side.

Which is why you had to move the goal posts, to paper. Right?

You don't seem to understand or accept other people's perspectives. So you don't really understand Subjectivity, except your own.

Do you understand other people's perspectives? Whose perspective are you understanding? Point them out to me.

If you can't point them out - go ahead and assume the perspective you are talking about.

Go "behind" the digital image and look at it. Why can't you?

You're just covering for the fact that you misread, and/or misunderstood, what I said from the start, a clear piece of paper.

Why are you lying? The clear piece of paper wasn't the start.

This was the start.

Go ahead and position yourself "behind the image". Go ahead and position yourself at the "objective" perspective you are talking about.

And which one is lying? The subjective-you or the objective-you?

Neither.



From the point-of-view of the Subject, this image appears as a left hand. But objectively, a perspective from 'behind' the image, it would appear as a right hand. Is the image Left or Right? Subjectively, it is one. Objectively, it is both at the same time and moment.

[Wizard22]

You can't understand simple arguments...okay, I'll accept that, the thread moves forward.

I thought an example a 5-year-old can understand, the clear paper image, would take to you, but it didn't.

If you can't understand the point that simple, then it's beyond you.


Subjectivity includes many perspectives, not just my own, not just your own. But since you perceive Subjectivity as...only your own consciousness, experience, ego, then that's on you. Maybe you don't have the capacity to imagine another's perspective. Most people don't, or can't. That's fine. Maybe your brain just doesn't have the ability...?

[Skepdick]

You can't understand simple arguments...okay, I'll accept that, the thread moves forward.

I thought an example a 5-year-old can understand, the clear paper image, would take to you, but it didn't.

If you can't understand the point that simple, then it's beyond you.

Subjectivity includes many perspectives, not just my own, not just your own. But since you perceive Subjectivity as...only your own consciousness, experience, ego, then that's on you. Maybe you don't have the capacity to imagine another's perspective. Most people don't, or can't. That's fine. Maybe your brain just doesn't have the ability...?

What's preventing you from understanding that the perspective you are talking about doesn't exist?

This image has no "back" side.

There is NO perspective, no physical reference frame, from which the thumb is on the left.

It is precisely the dysfunction in your brain which is making you think that rotating images in your head amounts to perspectives held buy other people.

[Wizard22]

But objectively, a perspective from 'behind' the image, it would appear as a right hand.

There's nothing confusing about this.

[Skepdick]

But objectively, a perspective from 'behind' the image, it would appear as a right hand.

There's nothing confusing about this.

Of course there is nothing confusing about it. Your brain has a dysfunction.

You think that a digital image has a "back" side. Your brain dysfunction amounts to your inability to understand dimensionality.
Rather ironic, though that once I perform a horizontal flip of the image (all in software, of course) you can't even tell us which one is the "back" and which one is the "front" side.

Almost like you don't understand symmetry groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_group

rotationA.jpg (23.44 KiB) Viewed 2640 times

rotationB.jpg (23.43 KiB) Viewed 2639 times