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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:07 pmRight, 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.)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.)
No. "subjective" refers to brains/mental phenomena in general--regardless of whose brain and/or mental phenomena we're talking about.By your definition of objectivity, everything outside my brain is objective, including all other brains and their processes.
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.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.
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.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?
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.