The single most important distinction to be understood before any philosophical discussion is entered.

Loosely termed, objectivity is 'not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; based on real facts ', while subjectivity is 'influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts'

But I am not here to talk about the loosely defined daily usages of these words. I am here to talk about the philosophical implications of the two world views. When I do this, I mean subjective to be 'that which is experienced or perceived' and objective to be 'that which is externally real and absolutely true'.

After much thought, I have come to accept that there must be an objective world. There must be, because the objective state is simply a description (to use a subjective term) of how things are. If there is something (anything), then there is an objective reality to that thing. Even if the entire universe is idealistic (ie: existing only in your mind), then it is objectively true that the universe only exists in your mind. This is an objective reality. Reality = Objective. Objective = How things are. If there are things, then there is an objective universe.

Accepting the reality of Objective truth, we are then thrust into the world of subjectivity.

We are subjective things. We objectively 'exist' (in some sense of the word exist), but every experience we have, every memory, every thought, every belief, is entirely subjective. There is nothing objective in any of our thoughts/experiences. There is an objective truth which can be stated about those thoughts, but the thoughts themselves are not objectively true. They are subjective.

EG: *I think that building is 543m tall
*Shane thinks that that building is 543m tall
The first is my subjective belief (a belief which I have derived from my interactions with what I assume to be the objective world), the second is a possible objective statement about my thoughts (though since we don't ahve contact with the objective, even this must necessarily be made subjectively in an attempt to simulate a possible objective truth.)
*The matter referred to by the subjectively defined term 'Building' has spatial qualities about it which makes it take up an amount of space, the length of which could be equated to the subjective measurement of metres, and that length would be 542.546656524785318472.... exactly.
And this third case could be a possible objective truth about the building.

When people talk about beliefs being 'true' for each individual, they mean that the beliefs are subjectively true. Subjective truth has no bearing at all on objective truth. Objective truth may have direct bearings on subjective truth (though not necessarily).

Subjectivity is a manifestation* of the objective universe. (and not the other way around)

Relevence of 'Our Subjective Reality' Vs 'THE Objective Reality'.
The above assertion that each of our subjective realities takes on a back seat to the objective reality is a funny thing because as true as i believe it to be, the fact is, we are subjective things. We do not actually have direct contact with the objective universe necessarily, and so our only reality, is each of our individual subjective realities.

While Subjectivity may only be a consequence of the objective reality, without our subjective views, there would be know knowledge of the objective reality. This is not actually important, but to us subjective creatures, its seems pretty important to us.

My Subjective reality is just one of the 6 billion realities on this little planet, but without it, the objective universe is completely irrelevent to me.

What I am trying to spell out here, is that there is simply no way of saying 'Objective' is best, or 'Subjective is most important' etc, because the fact is, without objective, there is no subjective. And without subjective, there is no realisation of the objective. (Do remember though, u can have objective without subjective, but u cannot have subjective without objective.)

While our current science works on the assumption that our subjective realities are closely based on the objective world, this may not be the case. But even if it isn't, it will still be possible to elicit facts about the objective universe, simply because it is objective. (IMO)

*Manifestation may not be the right word (it just sounds like it is). I can't think of a better word though, so if anyone can tell me the word which would get across the point that Subjectivity exists only because the objective universe has properties about it, which allows subjectivity to occur.

OK, the distinction is aptly made. However, in order for these definitions to be working definitions, I think we have to come up with a justification to say which (if any) tools we use to make sense of "objective reality" are really objective.

We have all been told that two tools are objective (in that they can be used by anyone):

1. Logic
2. Experimentation

So, two questions:

1. Are these objective?
2. If so, are there any more tools like these?

my two cents...we believe there is an objective world, we can only perceive our world through our subjective senses, what makes us think that objectivity exists is that there are constants that we can all agree on...

one thing is for sure (at least in my perspective . )..as human beings, we need both to exist and flourish...our "perceived" objectivity to keep us as close to reality as possible, and our "real" subjectivity to keep us moving forward and growing to understand ourselves and our world....

went down the hill, the other day
my soul got happy and stayed all day

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
1. Logic
2. Experimentation

So, two questions:

1. Are these objective?
2. If so, are there any more tools like these?

---

I believe the answer is yes, but the truth is, I only believe that because I am using logical induction from the hundreds of years of logical thought which has produced so much. But that is a sort of circular reasoning isn't it?

Is experimentation objective? Well, again, whatever we do has objective consequences, things are changed, things happen, but it can never stop us from interpretting those changes in our subjective way. Not only are the initial actual experiences subjective, but we then have all those human subjective filters through which the data is screened (our metaphysics and our biases etc).

So asking if experimentation is objective is like asking whether my existence is objective. yeah it is, but my existence only makes sense to me through my subjective. Experimentation is an objective thing, but it only makes sense when subjectively deciphered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:

What I am trying to spell out here, is that there is simply no way of saying 'Objective' is best, or 'Subjective is most important' etc, because the fact is, without objective, there is no subjective. And without subjective, there is no realisation of the objective.

---

I very much liked how you broke things down for your thread topic. It is thoughtful and reasonable, especially for understanding the tenuous relationship between our perceptions and interpretations, and that which exists outside of us.

However, one thing you said above, that subjective is no more important that objective, is something with which I can't agree. Let me see if I can make my case.

You have been caught by the Taliban and your head is on the chopping block. You can't know what anyone else is thinking or feeling with certainty, but you can absolutely know what you are thinking and feeling. How do you feel about losing your head? When it is gone, so is every single bit of your ability to understand anything about subjective or objective reality. Which is most important then, subjectivity or objectivity?

Are you going to sacrifice your desire for life to the equal good of objectivity? Or admit you want to live more than anything? That desire to live establishes for individuals that subjectivity is far more important to us than the objective world. And outside of "us" who can experience or understand "important"? Outside of subjective, there is no meaning to the word. The whole universe can blow up, and what does the objective care?

. . . Les

quote:

---

Originally posted by lwsleeth:
You have been caught by the Taliban and your head is on the chopping block.

---

Have you been caught by the taliban, or do you think u have been caught by the taliban?

Are you going to get your head cut off, or do you think u are going to get your head cut off?

When they cut your head off, do you die because you think that you are supposed to die post deheading, or do you die because blood stops feeding oxygen to your brain?

After your death, do the taliban remain, or do they disappear?

I understand however, that to each of us individually, there is nothing more important than our own subejctive interpretation.

That is why I am studying molecular Biology, and attempting to find a way to keep myself alive forever. I never want my subjectivity to be destroyed.

went down the hill, the other day
my soul got happy and stayed all day

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
Objective is more important than subjective in the sense that subjective only makes sense when it is fed objective information to interpret. Without objective, there can be no subjective.

---

(Hey, I thought you said ". . . there is simply no way of saying '. . . Subjective is most important' etc, because the fact is, without objective, there is no subjective. And without subjective, there is no realisation of the objective.")

Anyway, does the subjective disappear during sensory deprivation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
I understand however, that to each of us individually, there is nothing more important than our own subejctive interpretation.

That is why I am studying molecular Biology, and attempting to find a way to keep myself alive forever. I never want my subjectivity to be destroyed.

---

Good luck with that! However, I still say that the term "important" (or "best") has no meaning outside of subjectivity. In the objective realm nothing means anything. I personally am a zillion times more interested in subjectivity that objectivity.

. . . Les

I have a funny test for your theory. My Abyssinian cat is in heat, and in case you don’t know how passionate they can be, it is a real pain. Five or six days of incessant cooing and running from one end of the house to the other (day and night!)

Now, objectively I know what is going on, and objectively I could stop it quickly (since she is driving me nuts) with a stun gun or whack over the head with a blunt object. Is there any good reason not to if objective reality is most important?

. . . Les

I mean that u can have objective without subjective, but u cannot have subjective without objective. That is all I mean.

But if we ignore that fact, then subjective is much more 'important' simply because 'importance' is an entirely subjective thing. 'Importance' is a rating we attribute to how much something means to us individually or collectively. Without my subjective view, who cares about the objective?

So, in regards your example:

quote:

---

Now, objectively I know what is going on, and objectively I could stop it quickly (since she is driving me nuts) with a stun gun or whack over the head with a blunt object. Is there any good reason not to if objective reality is most important?

---

Well, you are your own subjective reality, and the 'good reason' is only a good or a bad reason to you. In the objective, there is no such thing as good or bad, theres just cause, effect, and what is.

In the objective, there is two potentialities, each with their respective consequences, neither of which are better nor worse than the other (better and worse being entirely subjective concepts). Assuming the objective universe is not deterministic, both potentialities are possible, and your subjective world is probably the determinant in action.

Good and Bad reasons only make sense in the subjective. And to 'you' your subjective reality is the most important thing in the ...everything... Don't ask the objective what you should do, it can't tell you (unless it is deterministic, in which case asking won't make a difference anyway )

"Our experiences are internal because they happen within our awareness. Our experiences are objectively-real in that we are having them. The reason why we define experience as 'subjective', is simply because the definition of experience is largely-subjective. And not because we cannot be sure that such experiences are real.
For example, the experience of 'pain' is real to me. It is when I try to explain what pain is and where it comes from, that my experience becomes subjective. At least, this is the case unless there exists a purely-rational train-of-thought to explain such an experience.
We must be careful with the use of the words 'subjective' and 'objective' (AG take note.). True objectivity stems from the rational explanation of what we are really experiencing. Pure-rationalisation of sensory-perception is required, in order to build an objective-fact."

From this, it then becomes clear that science is not necessarily 'objective'. For, in order to be purely-objective about our sensory-perceptions, we must acknowledge that it is a mistake to assume that the cause of everything within our perceptions, is borne of something within those perceptions (and that is the attitude of science).
It is easy to demonstrate that the cause of everything within our sensory-perceptions, is an aspect of the mind itself. Colours; pain; smells; sound; tastes; etc.: the ultimate-cause of these images is the mind itself. That is an objective statement.
Thus, in order for science to become purely-objective, it needs to adopt the fact that the absolute-origins of our sensory-reality, is the mind itself - and not some 11-dimensional membrane (for example). Please note that this concession towards being objective does not mean (at this point) that there is no external reality; or that this external-reality has not effected the mind itself. Those issues are another matter - which I have dealt with in other topics, such as Siv's topic.

But the point is: being objective does not necessarily imply that you must be scientific. Being objective requires that you use science in a purely-rational manner. And many people do not.

I'm suing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
I think you misunderstand what I mean by 'more important' (which I did say I wouldn't say, but its hard to avoid).

I mean that u can have objective without subjective, but u cannot have subjective without objective. That is all I mean.

---

I knew what you meant, I was teasing you a little, and being bit silly last night about the cat. However, there was a serious side to my poor example, which I couldn't quite put my finger on before, but I think I've figured out. It is that I don't think it is strictly true "that u can have objective without subjective, but u cannot have subjective without objective."

I see how it is true of "given" objective circumstances, but not for creatively shaped objective circumstances. I find myself in a universe that already works a certain way. I had nothing to do with it, and unless it exists I would neither be here nor have my subjective experience of it.

But once here I rearrange certain objective conditions so they improve my, and potentially others', subjective experience. Let's say I grow lots of food and feed hungry people, develop a vaccine for some disease, write beautiful music, etc. In that case, there would have been none of that objective change without the subjective.

Now, I'll reason it out a little further and say that within the human sphere, it seems the quality of creative acts is intimately linked to the quality of consciousness. This planet is packed with the objective results of subjective acts, some of it harms more than helps and some of it helps more than harms. When something helps the subjective it seems to sustain or improve life, when something harms we might boil down the effect as increasing the rate of disorder.

Then I look at the universe, and most of it by far is dead and losing whatever order it has. The one known major exception to deadness is life. If you are a materialist you will say objective reality alone has brought about the subjective. But with the quality of objective change that's taken place to create life and consciousness, who can be sure nothing subjective was involved with that?

. . . Les

quote:

---

Anyway, does the subjective disappear during sensory deprivation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by russ_watters:

quote:

---

Anyway, does the subjective disappear during sensory deprivation?

---

Both disappear. Both are types of or ways to interpret INFORMATION. So both disappear with sensory deprivation. But its not instantaneous. Before you go completely insane, your brain fills the information void with all sorts of perceptions of the meaning of the void. ALL of that is subjective since none is based on real information. Though I guess that the absence of information is in itself a piece of information. But its such a tiny piece of information that your mind takes and immediately runs with in a subjective way.

---

What if you are highly practiced at sensory deprivation, and in fact can so turn inward and become still the mind completely stops? Rather than panicing, one finds the quiet and lack of external stimulation beautiful. Rather than trying to figure out the meaning of the void, one is content to experience and enjoy it.

. . . Les

quote:

---

Originally posted by russ_watters:

quote:

---

Anyway, does the subjective disappear during sensory deprivation?

---

Both disappear. Both are types of or ways to interpret INFORMATION. So both disappear with sensory deprivation. But its not instantaneous. Before you go completely insane, your brain fills the information void with all sorts of perceptions of the meaning of the void. ALL of that is subjective since none is based on real information. Though I guess that the absence of information is in itself a piece of information. But its such a tiny piece of information that your mind takes and immediately runs with in a subjective way.

---

I dissagree. If objective reality exists at all, it should be defined (at least in part) as that which continues to exist when I am not sensing it. Shouldn't it?

Great topic, AG. It rather causes one to wonder how the concept of "objective reality" ever came to be, in the first place. If no one has ever seen it or experienced it, nor anything like it, how is it that we all seem to have a conception of it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lwsleeth:
But once here I rearrange certain objective conditions so they improve my, and potentially others', subjective experience. Let's say I grow lots of food and feed hungry people, develop a vaccine for some disease, write beautiful music, etc. In that case, there would have been none of that objective change without the subjective.

---

quote:

---

Now, I'll reason it out a little further and say that within the human sphere, it seems the quality of creative acts is intimately linked to the quality of consciousness. This planet is packed with the objective results of subjective acts, some of it harms more than helps and some of it helps more than harms. When something helps the subjective it seems to sustain or improve life, when something harms we might boil down the effect as increasing the rate of disorder.

Then I look at the universe, and most of it by far is dead and losing whatever order it has. The one known major exception to deadness is life. If you are a materialist you will say objective reality alone has brought about the subjective. But with the quality of objective change that's taken place to create life and consciousness, who can be sure nothing subjective was involved with that?

---

Sorry LG, I will reply to your post again (AGAIN!!!), but I have a lot to write and I am pushed for time atm. Quickly though, one thing I did say in your reply that I lost, was how I think we need to distinguish between when we are talking about 'The Objective' and our subjective attempts to describe that objective world. As such I propose simple capitalisation of the O in Objective means we are talking about the actual objective world, while lower case o in objective talks about our idealised subjective description of the objective world (idealised insofar as lets pretend that we are accurately describing it).

With this rule set out, we would talk about the Objective reality which brings about the possibility for subjectivity. That subjectivity is the thing we use to attempt to objectively describe the Objective. We are not actually objectively knowledgable atm (presumably), but one day it may happen, and it is easier on the discussion if we talk about objectivity in terms of this future idealised situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
But still, your subjective is only a manifestation of The Objective. Without the Objective, you would be unable to develop your subjective, unable to alter the things around you (there would be nothing around you to alter).

---

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that the objective can be dependent on the subjective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
life is a subjective belief. Subjectivity is a subjective belief. Materialism need not enter into is. The Objective is just truth. If we knew the Objective, we could only describe it. But we only know the subjective, so we can only attempt to describe what we think the objective might be. No where in that description though, should the concepts of quality, good, bad, better, worse, living, dead etc be brought into the description. These are restricted to the subjective realm.

---

This seems to me contradictory thinking. Why would you separate life from its objective element? Or subjectivity? According to you, they ultimately exist only because the objective reality allows/creates it. If quality, living, dead etc. are part of reality, then it must have an objective root. You are creating a duality by saying that the subjective is forever distinct from the objective. We might not be able to know if we know, but we may nonetheless know perfectly. If all is a manifestation of the ultimate - the objective - then even the subjective must be something that possesses its absolute qualities. In fact, since the subjective comes after the objective, we might assume the subjective is an evolved condition of the objective and therefore possibly qualified to say something meaningful about its source.

. . . Les

quote:

---

Originally posted by lwsleeth:
I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that the objective can be dependent on the subjective.

---

quote:

---

This seems to me contradictory thinking. Why would you separate life from its objective element? Or subjectivity? According to you, they ultimately exist only because the objective reality allows/creates it. If quality, living, dead etc. are part of reality, then it must have an objective root. You are creating a duality by saying that the subjective is forever distinct from the objective. We might not be able to know if we know, but we may nonetheless know perfectly. If all is a manifestation of the ultimate - the objective - then even the subjective must be something that possesses its absolute qualities. In fact, since the subjective comes after the objective, we might assume the subjective is an evolved condition of the objective and therefore possibly qualified to say something meaningful about its source.

---

As for the subjective coming from the objective, and therefore likely being evolved to say something meaningful about its source, I agree entirely (but with an important reservation). It is this thought which makes me agree with scientists in their assumption that our subejctivity is an accurate representation of the Objective (note: Representation. That is all we can ever get of it)

The reservation though, is the fact that this could be a matrix situation. ie: This reality that we experience is all set up for our benefit in an attempt to contain us/fool us etc. There is a real chance that our objectively experience subjective isn't the Objective at all. So be careful.

So, from the thread on The Limits of Science in a Rational Debate:
"The problem which I am trying to get my head around, and which I believe LG is getting at, is exactly what Subjectivity is. With my other topic in mind, the Objective is the true reality, and Subjectives are individual experiences of that Objective, but at what stage, at what point does the Subjective come into it?

Pain. An entirely subjective thing. But it must occur objectively. So what is it objectively? Well, reducing it to the cellular level and looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, it started when the selective pressure became obvious that any organism which avoided certain things, tended to survive better. To better facilitate this response, signals evolved which warned the organism of impending doom.

So, we have a situation where chemical messengers move around, so that the cell/organism responds in a particular way which avoids the initial cause of the release of that messenger chemicals.

Now, we know that cells can do this without consciousness. So why do we need this subjective experience of pain? Why can't our body just react accordingly? Why is there subjective involved in this objective event?

What is subjective? Where does it come from?"

That is what I want to know now. I think this is a vital question, and very very worth time spent on it. I am concerned that it is one of those questions which we simply will not be able to answer to a satisfactory degree (like the causality chain arguments, and the definitions of space etc), but at the same time, I am also seeing a valid point in LG's style of thought on this topic. There is no problem explaining where the subejctive comes from if the entirety of reality is projected by a subjective mind.

Of course though, I am naturally resistant to such a concept, because there is nothing for it other than the fact of 'Nothing else explains it'.