The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:07 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:55 pm Thanks, TS. That's very helpful. I want to make sure I understand your position and its implications.

You say that what we call the mind is a physical thing, and that what we call subjectivity refers to that physical thing and its processes - what goes on 'in the mind' - which means in the brain. And it follows that what we call objectivity refers to everything that's not 'in the mind' - which means not in the brain. Have I got that right? If so, it seems to me we agree there's nothing non-physical or abstract about the situation. Is that right? (I certainly think there's no evidence for the existence of non-physical things or processes.)
Right, there's nothing nonphysical or abstract in that sense. (Re "in that sense," brains, a la mental phenomena, do something called "abstraction," but abstractions are concrete, physical processes.)
By your definition of objectivity, everything outside my brain is objective, including all other brains and their processes.
No. "subjective" refers to brains/mental phenomena in general--regardless of whose brain and/or mental phenomena we're talking about.

You're thinking of it as if it would be indexical, as terms like "you" and "I" are. It's not indexical. It's rather a term like "person." That is, if I'm talking, I'm "I" and you're "you," but if you're talking you're "I" and I'm "you." "I" and "you" change their reference depending on who is speaking. They're indexical. But "person" doesn't change depending on whether you or I are talking. We're both persons in both cases. "Person" isn't indexical. "Subjective" and "objective" are like "person."
It seems to make no sense to call what goes on in other brains 'subjective' - and so, by the same argument, it seems to make no sense to call what goes on in my brain 'subjective'. The words 'subjective' and 'objective' seem to have 'relativistic' meanings, because what's inside one brain is always outside all other brains.
I don't know why you're thinking this, but the way I use the terms, and this is pretty much a traditional way to use the terms, is that "subjective" refers to mental (brain or personal) phenomena regardless of the mind/brain/person, whereas "objective" is stuff that's "outside" of minds/brains/persons.
On the other hand, if 'subjectivity' refers to what's inside not 'my' brain, but rather a brain, and therefore all brains, the nature of objectivity seems problematic. If what's objective is what's outside all brains, what meaning can be given to the expression 'an objective decision' (or argument, and so on)? What does objectivity amount to if all perceptions and reasoning about what's outside all brains occurs in brains - and therefore subjectively?
Right, so decisions, arguments, etc. can't be objective, but they can be about objective things. The colloquial "make an objective decision" amounts to taking objective things into consideration in a way that one might avoid otherwise.
Okay, thanks again. Something Flash just wrote sharpened this up for me, and clarified why I think your (and the traditional philosophical) distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is mistaken.

I don't think the words 'objective' and subjective' can coherently be used as adjectives to describe things and their location. (I except for now linguistic assertions and, as it were, attitudes.) It makes no sense to call a brain and what's inside it objective or subjective, just as it makes no sense to call something outside a brain, such as a dog, objective or subjective. Outside philosophy, we don't use those words that way, and I think the philosophical use is - and has always been - misleading.

Flash has this example: 'I have a fear of trees', which he calls subjective. But I think this is a factual assertion with a truth-value, which makes it objective. That it's something 'going on in a brain' isn't the point, and that doesn't make it a subjective assertion. There are ways for others to confirm the truth of the assertion, but even if there aren't, it remains a factual assertion.

On the other hand 'trees are beautiful' is a subjective assertion, because it expresses an opinion and has no truth-value. It's location, 'in the brain', isn't what matters. What does matter is its function as an assertion.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:34 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:07 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:55 pm Thanks, TS. That's very helpful. I want to make sure I understand your position and its implications.

You say that what we call the mind is a physical thing, and that what we call subjectivity refers to that physical thing and its processes - what goes on 'in the mind' - which means in the brain. And it follows that what we call objectivity refers to everything that's not 'in the mind' - which means not in the brain. Have I got that right? If so, it seems to me we agree there's nothing non-physical or abstract about the situation. Is that right? (I certainly think there's no evidence for the existence of non-physical things or processes.)
Right, there's nothing nonphysical or abstract in that sense. (Re "in that sense," brains, a la mental phenomena, do something called "abstraction," but abstractions are concrete, physical processes.)
By your definition of objectivity, everything outside my brain is objective, including all other brains and their processes.
No. "subjective" refers to brains/mental phenomena in general--regardless of whose brain and/or mental phenomena we're talking about.

You're thinking of it as if it would be indexical, as terms like "you" and "I" are. It's not indexical. It's rather a term like "person." That is, if I'm talking, I'm "I" and you're "you," but if you're talking you're "I" and I'm "you." "I" and "you" change their reference depending on who is speaking. They're indexical. But "person" doesn't change depending on whether you or I are talking. We're both persons in both cases. "Person" isn't indexical. "Subjective" and "objective" are like "person."
It seems to make no sense to call what goes on in other brains 'subjective' - and so, by the same argument, it seems to make no sense to call what goes on in my brain 'subjective'. The words 'subjective' and 'objective' seem to have 'relativistic' meanings, because what's inside one brain is always outside all other brains.
I don't know why you're thinking this, but the way I use the terms, and this is pretty much a traditional way to use the terms, is that "subjective" refers to mental (brain or personal) phenomena regardless of the mind/brain/person, whereas "objective" is stuff that's "outside" of minds/brains/persons.
On the other hand, if 'subjectivity' refers to what's inside not 'my' brain, but rather a brain, and therefore all brains, the nature of objectivity seems problematic. If what's objective is what's outside all brains, what meaning can be given to the expression 'an objective decision' (or argument, and so on)? What does objectivity amount to if all perceptions and reasoning about what's outside all brains occurs in brains - and therefore subjectively?
Right, so decisions, arguments, etc. can't be objective, but they can be about objective things. The colloquial "make an objective decision" amounts to taking objective things into consideration in a way that one might avoid otherwise.
Okay, thanks again. Something Flash just wrote sharpened this up for me, and clarified why I think your (and the traditional philosophical) distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is mistaken.

I don't think the words 'objective' and subjective' can coherently be used as adjectives to describe things and their location. (I except for now linguistic assertions and, as it were, attitudes.) It makes no sense to call a brain and what's inside it objective or subjective, just as it makes no sense to call something outside a brain, such as a dog, objective or subjective. Outside philosophy, we don't use those words that way, and I think the philosophical use is - and has always been - misleading.

Flash has this example: 'I have a fear of trees', which he calls subjective. But I think this is a factual assertion with a truth-value, which makes it objective. That it's something 'going on in a brain' isn't the point, and that doesn't make it a subjective assertion. There are ways for others to confirm the truth of the assertion, but even if there aren't, it remains a factual assertion.

On the other hand 'trees are beautiful' is a subjective assertion, because it expresses an opinion and has no truth-value. It's location, 'in the brain', isn't what matters. What does matter is its function as an assertion.
So on the usage I'm talking about, "subjective" doesn't imply "non-factual." It's a subjective fact--that is, a fact about a particular brain or mental state (or in other words, it's a state of affairs with respect to the brain(s) in question), that someone has a fear of trees.

Likewise, "trees are beautiful" is a subjective fact about whoever judges trees to be beautiful. There's an implied "Joe feels that" to utterances such as "trees are beautiful." So "trees are beautiful" would be a subjective fact about Joe, just in case Joe is someone who says "Trees are beautiful." It amounts to "Joe feels that trees are beautiful." We don't have to state "I feel that . . ." before every utterance like that, just like we don't have to state "It's my opinion that . . ." before every statement of opinion. It's understood that someone saying "Donald Trump should be impeached" is giving us their opinion without them needing to announce as much before every opinion they utter.

The significance of noting the location of such things is in whether we can get them right or wrong (in the sense of "informationally accurate/inaccurate"), and just what we're getting right or wrong. When we're talking about things that only occur as brain phenomena, we can only get them right or wrong insofar as we're accurately or inaccurately reporting the brain phenomena that an individual (or some collection of individuals) has. We can't get such things right or wrong outside of that context, and it's not the case, at least not outside of individual's opinions, that other people should have the same brain phenomena as a given individual. So we can get right or wrong "Joe thinks that trees are beautiful" or "Joe has a fear of trees"--both are reports of Joe's psychological states, but we can't get right or wrong "Trees are beautiful" or "Trees are scary" where we're intending either as personal context-free.

This is different than when we're talking about things that do not only occur as brain phenomena. If we say, "The moon is made of green cheese," we're either matching or failing to match what the moon is made of, where that's independent of what's going on in anyone's brain. "Trees are beautiful" and "Trees are scary" isn't independent of what's going on in anyone's brain. Both are about psychological states someone can be in.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:38 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:34 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:07 pm
Right, there's nothing nonphysical or abstract in that sense. (Re "in that sense," brains, a la mental phenomena, do something called "abstraction," but abstractions are concrete, physical processes.)



No. "subjective" refers to brains/mental phenomena in general--regardless of whose brain and/or mental phenomena we're talking about.

You're thinking of it as if it would be indexical, as terms like "you" and "I" are. It's not indexical. It's rather a term like "person." That is, if I'm talking, I'm "I" and you're "you," but if you're talking you're "I" and I'm "you." "I" and "you" change their reference depending on who is speaking. They're indexical. But "person" doesn't change depending on whether you or I are talking. We're both persons in both cases. "Person" isn't indexical. "Subjective" and "objective" are like "person."



I don't know why you're thinking this, but the way I use the terms, and this is pretty much a traditional way to use the terms, is that "subjective" refers to mental (brain or personal) phenomena regardless of the mind/brain/person, whereas "objective" is stuff that's "outside" of minds/brains/persons.



Right, so decisions, arguments, etc. can't be objective, but they can be about objective things. The colloquial "make an objective decision" amounts to taking objective things into consideration in a way that one might avoid otherwise.
Okay, thanks again. Something Flash just wrote sharpened this up for me, and clarified why I think your (and the traditional philosophical) distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is mistaken.

I don't think the words 'objective' and subjective' can coherently be used as adjectives to describe things and their location. (I except for now linguistic assertions and, as it were, attitudes.) It makes no sense to call a brain and what's inside it objective or subjective, just as it makes no sense to call something outside a brain, such as a dog, objective or subjective. Outside philosophy, we don't use those words that way, and I think the philosophical use is - and has always been - misleading.

Flash has this example: 'I have a fear of trees', which he calls subjective. But I think this is a factual assertion with a truth-value, which makes it objective. That it's something 'going on in a brain' isn't the point, and that doesn't make it a subjective assertion. There are ways for others to confirm the truth of the assertion, but even if there aren't, it remains a factual assertion.

On the other hand 'trees are beautiful' is a subjective assertion, because it expresses an opinion and has no truth-value. It's location, 'in the brain', isn't what matters. What does matter is its function as an assertion.
So on the usage I'm talking about, "subjective" doesn't imply "non-factual." It's a subjective fact--that is, a fact about a particular brain or mental state (or in other words, it's a state of affairs with respect to the brain(s) in question), that someone has a fear of trees.

Likewise, "trees are beautiful" is a subjective fact about whoever judges trees to be beautiful. There's an implied "Joe feels that" to utterances such as "trees are beautiful." So "trees are beautiful" would be a subjective fact about Joe, just in case Joe is someone who says "Trees are beautiful." It amounts to "Joe feels that trees are beautiful." We don't have to state "I feel that . . ." before every utterance like that, just like we don't have to state "It's my opinion that . . ." before every statement of opinion. It's understood that someone saying "Donald Trump should be impeached" is giving us their opinion without them needing to announce as much before every opinion they utter.

The significance of noting the location of such things is in whether we can get them right or wrong (in the sense of "informationally accurate/inaccurate"), and just what we're getting right or wrong. When we're talking about things that only occur as brain phenomena, we can only get them right or wrong insofar as we're accurately or inaccurately reporting the brain phenomena that an individual (or some collection of individuals) has. We can't get such things right or wrong outside of that context, and it's not the case, at least not outside of individual's opinions, that other people should have the same brain phenomena as a given individual. So we can get right or wrong "Joe thinks that trees are beautiful" or "Joe has a fear of trees"--both are reports of Joe's psychological states, but we can't get right or wrong "Trees are beautiful" or "Trees are scary" where we're intending either as personal context-free.

This is different than when we're talking about things that do not only occur as brain phenomena. If we say, "The moon is made of green cheese," we're either matching or failing to match what the moon is made of, where that's independent of what's going on in anyone's brain. "Trees are beautiful" and "Trees are scary" isn't independent of what's going on in anyone's brain. Both are about psychological states someone can be in.
Thanks again. I want to mull this over. Prima facie, I think the expression 'subjective fact' is incoherent, because a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, so it's neither subjective nor objective. But I see why the expression makes sense given your use of the terms.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:59 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:38 pm So on the usage I'm talking about, "subjective" doesn't imply "non-factual." It's a subjective fact--that is, a fact about a particular brain or mental state (or in other words, it's a state of affairs with respect to the brain(s) in question), that someone has a fear of trees.
Thanks again. I want to mull this over. Prima facie, I think the expression 'subjective fact' is incoherent, because a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, so it's neither subjective nor objective. But I see why the expression makes sense given your use of the terms.
What a mess of meaning-salad.

Note the following meaning of subjectivity from a dictionary;
  • Definition of Subjective (Entry 1 of 2)
    1: ....

    2: of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations

    3a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL
    — compare OBJECTIVE sense 2a
    3b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

    4a(1): peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL subjective judgments
    ...4a(2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
    a subjective account of the incident

    4b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
    subjective sensations

    4c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
    a subjective symptom of disease
    — compare OBJECTIVE sense 2c

    5: lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective
I believe what Terrapin Station is referring to is meaning of subjective as in 4b,
  • 4b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
    subjective sensations
This meaning is not the default meaning of subjectivity within philosophical discussions.

The default meaning of subjectivity in philosophy are these meanings;
  • 3a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL
    — compare OBJECTIVE sense 2a
    3b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

    4a(1): peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL subjective judgments
    ...4a(2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
    a subjective account of the incident

    5: lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY
The above subjectivity [philosophical] is contrasted with objectivity [philosophical], i.e.
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Thus, my preference;
So,
  • Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.[1]
    Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes [principles, moral facts] to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through Subjectivity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
I have already discuss the above issues here;
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Peter Holmes »

An observation on the OP title: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'.

We use the word definition and its cognates in two completely different ways. To define a word is to explain how we use or could use it. But by contrast, to define a thing is to describe it, which is a different linguistic operation. (Of course, a word is also a thing-that-can-be-described in various ways: grammatically, etymologically, functionally, and so on.)

So the question is this: are definitions of objectivity and mind explanations of the way(s) we use or could use those words; or are they descriptions of things of some kind - descriptions consisting of factual assertions with truth-value?

Traditionally, we called the words objectivity and mind 'abstract nouns' - which is a misattribution, because a word is a real thing, not an abstract thing. So 'abstract noun' really means 'name of an abstract thing' - which obviously assumes the existence of so-called abstract things.

But, pending evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things, belief that they exist is irrational. So definitions of objectivity and mind can only be explanations of how we use or could use those abstract nouns - and we can use words any ways we like - or necessarily speculative descriptions of so-called abstract things for the existence and nature of which there seems to be no evidence whatsoever.

Upshot. Talk of 'bastardized definitions' in this context is ignorant and ridiculous.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:41 am We use the word definition and its cognates in two completely different ways. To define a word is to explain how we use or could use it. But by contrast, to define a thing is to describe it, which is a different linguistic operation. (Of course, a word is also a thing-that-can-be-described in various ways: grammatically, etymologically, functionally, and so on.)

...
Before anybody can answer any of your questions, can you define the word "thing" ?

Tell us how you are using it.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:21 am Here is Peter Holmes' bastardized version of what is objectivity and what is mind.

...
the principles also has been put into practice had benefited humanity tremendously.

Views?
My view is that you are still wrong. And that reworking the same old, same old, in to yet another dredfully dull and repetative thread is not going to help your claims.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here's Rorty's view of What is Objectivity.
If one reinterprets objectivity as intersubjectivity, or as solidarity, in the ways I suggest below, then one will drop the question of how to get in touch with "mind-independent and language-independent reality."

One will replace it with questions like
"What are the limits of our community?
Are our encounters sufficiently free and open?
Has what we have recently gained in solidarity cost us our ability to listen to outsiders who are suffering?
To outsiders who have new ideas?"
These are political questions rather than metaphysical or epistemological questions.
Dewey seems to me to have given us the right lead when he viewed pragmatism not as grounding, but as clearing the ground for, democratic politics.

Rorty: Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth - PtI Section 1
I have always insisted 'objectivity' = intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus upon a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR]. e.g. the scientific FSK produces objective scientific facts, truths or knowledge.

I don't see a problem with the above extending to moral objectivity = intersubjectivity i.e. intersubjective consensus upon a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR]- the moral FSK produces objective moral facts, truths or knowledge.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:44 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:17 pm Does it not make more sense to view subjective and objective statements in terms of how we use them?

So if I say "that is a tree" and I intend that as an objective statement of a fact, I am by implication saying that I know how to identify a tree, and hoping that so do you, and we have a more or less agreed way to look at trees and determine whether we are correctly using the term today.

But if you say "I have a fear of trees", this is a fundamentally subjective statement, even if we observe your behaviour or chop up your brain, that fear you feel when you encounter shrubbery of terrifying proportions is something ultimately have to ask you about if we want to understand it as is.

At risk of sounding like Skepdick during his even less lucid moments ... When we talk about mind independence, are we not really discussing this basic choice of how to go about confirming/agreeing things, and what competencies are assumed of people correctly describing these two types of claim?
I sort of agree. But I see it as a matter of the function of assertions: whether they're factual (claiming something about reality) or non-factual (expressing an opinion, judgement or belief). My problem with your 'I have a fear of trees' example is that it seems to me that is a factual assertion - so confirmability doesn't conclusively decide the subjective/objective distinction. But 'trees are beautiful' is clearly a subjective assertion. And that's why 'this action is good' is subjective. It's not to do with inside/outside brains - VA's position - or confirmability.
I think I tend towards the view that these are a level of description issue.

So at one level of description the Mona Lisa is really just some paint on some wood. And so is my garden fence. If we stick to that level of description then there is no art and my fence should be purchased by the Louvre. Eliminative reductions come untethered when they discard inconvenient levels of decription and simply insist that the one they like is True and all others are mythical.

That way we end up with perfectly sane and intelligent people telling us that all phsychological nouns are nothing but "folk psychology"

Which property makes a proposition or belief or such subjective ultimately depends on which aspect of the thing we are considering. Right now you me and Terrapin seem to be forming a three pointed circle (don't any of you bastards dare criticise my geometry skills!) where one of us is looking at what the thing does, one at what it is, and one at what it's made of, or something along those lines anyway. Given that none of us is a substance dualist, and I don't think you guys are engaged in some general massacre of all mental content, there's probably a fair level of general compatibility between these views.

So when I say my fear of cardboard boxes is subjective I guess I intend that only for some purposes.
  • At one level, I am describing a recalcitrant emotion in which a subjective me somehow simultaneously knows but fails to believe that cardboard boxes are not objects to be feared.
  • At another level though, I am describing some configuration of my brain parts that could be seen with a powerful enough head inspection device which would not be a subjective thing
  • then again, I am talking about a subjective experience I have whenever a sneaky Amazon delivery guy leaps out at me and chases me with terrifying box beasts
  • but I am also explaining the clearly visible behaviour I exhibit such as wildly slapping Amazon delivery guys and I might be explaining that to a judge, which is perhaps less subjective
In each case, at a given level, we have a different way of finding out about the thing. I can describe my feelings of terror but you can only relate that experience to whatever you have your subjective fear of, perhaps you know what I mean because you have a personal phobia about socks. But if you want prod my brain and look for electrons, you should start by knocking me out and popping my head open rather than asking me what my electrons feel like.

I posit that what gets us into trouble with this subjective/objective divide isn't that there is a precise truth to the matter underlying the controversies, but rather the fact that depending on how we go about describing it in many particular cases, there often is not. The people causing all the problems tend to be those who overcommit to one side or the other, like the behaviourists that want to eliminate subjectivity as a category, or Skepdick who wants there to be infinte confusion over the matter so that he can can call all knowledge pure subjectivity and all subjective content objectively measurable at whim.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Bastardized Definition of 'Objectivity' and 'Mind'

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:35 am Note the following meaning of subjectivity from a dictionary;
  • Definition of Subjective (Entry 1 of 2)
    1: ....

    2: of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations

    3a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL
    — compare OBJECTIVE sense 2a
    3b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

    4a(1): peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL subjective judgments
    ...4a(2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
    a subjective account of the incident

    4b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
    subjective sensations

    4c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
    a subjective symptom of disease
    — compare OBJECTIVE sense 2c

    5: lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective
I believe what Terrapin Station is referring to is meaning of subjective as in 4b,
Actually, no, I'm not saying 4b at all. It's not limited to things not directly caused by external stimuli. Note that "caused by" is not the same as "identical to."

The standard usage that I'm relaying is consistent with 3a, 3b, 4a(1 & 2), and 4c.
Post Reply