What is so wrong with Subjectivity?

[Baz]

What is so wrong with Subjectivity?
Theories, concepts, art music and many of the pleasures of life are almost purely subjective and of considerable importance, at least to me.

[OpenYourEyes]

Baz wrote:
"What is so wrong with Subjectivity?
Theories, concepts, art music and many of the pleasures of life are almost purely subjective and of considerable importance, at least to me."



My response:
There's nothing wrong with subjectivity unless it's being used as a basis for an assertion. This is obviously because there is a bad track record of subjective ideas being wrong or misleading. However, there are subjective experiences that exist that we can not prove, like the experience of thoughts. In this case, the problem is not with subjectivity but rather with our narrow restriction of the tools we use to validate things. If I recall correctly, there have been some atheist (like, Michael Shermer?) who claimed that consciousness or thoughts are an illusion. The only justification I tend to find for this is that it goes against materialism.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 11 by OpenYourEyes]

So we are clear, you are saying there's nothing wrong with subjectivity unless it's being used as a basis for an objective assertion? I ask because the next sentence seems to be saying there is nothing wrong with subjectivity being used as a basis for assertions relating to subjective experiences of thoughts.

[Hamsaka]

Baz wrote:
"What is so wrong with Subjectivity?
Theories, concepts, art music and many of the pleasures of life are almost purely subjective and of considerable importance, at least to me."



My response:
There's nothing wrong with subjectivity unless it's being used as a basis for an assertion. This is obviously because there is a bad track record of subjective ideas being wrong or misleading.

So far, so good. Why do purely subjective ideas/information often fail as assertions for 'truth'?

However, there are subjective experiences that exist that we can not prove, like the experience of thoughts.

I put 'however' in bold because it denotes a change in direction, and separates the first part of your post from the rest of it.

'Thoughts' are subjective experiences that can be identified and measured as empirical things (as done by neuroscience in various kinds of imaging techniques). The content or gist of a thought, of course, remains subjective (ETA to finish this sentence).

In this case, the problem is not with subjectivity but rather with our narrow restriction of the tools we use to validate things.

What additional tools for determining 'truth' from subjective thoughts would you recommend ought to be used, in addition to the 'narrow restriction' of tools currently used?

If I recall correctly, there have been some atheist (like, Michael Shermer?) who claimed that consciousness or thoughts are an illusion. The only justification I tend to find for this is that it goes against materialism.

Actually, Michael Shermer (in response to Deepak Chopra) does not make any such claim. Deepak Chopra is a well known proponent of nonmaterialism, and in this article written by Shermer, he explains why 'consciousness' is materially based in the neural activity of the human brain: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... en-we-die/

The hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness, however, has vastly more evidence for it than the hypothesis that consciousness creates the brain. Damage to the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe, for example, causes face blindness, and stimulation of this same area causes people to see faces spontaneously. Stroke-caused damage to the visual cortex region called V1 leads to loss of conscious visual perception. Changes in conscious experience can be directly measured by functional MRI, electroencephalography and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can predict human choices from brain-scanning activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions made. Using brain scans alone, neuroscientists have even been able to reconstruct, on a computer screen, what someone is seeing.

Was there any more to your idea that some subjective elements (of whatever sort, you don't say) are valid measures of truth? Any ideas on what additional tools should be used to determine which subjective experiences or thoughts have valid truth in them?

[OpenYourEyes]

Bust Nak wrote:
"So we are clear, you are saying there's nothing wrong with subjectivity unless it's being used as a basis for an objective assertion? I ask because the next sentence seems to be saying there is nothing wrong with subjectivity being used as a basis for assertions relating to subjective experiences of thoughts."



My response:
I view thoughts as an exception to my point. In general, subjective experiences tend to be unreliable, misleading, or just wrong when tested. However, thoughts are intersubjective in that all humans experience them subjectively, and yet no one could deny their existence and impact on society since they influence actions like creating technology, improving society, logic, etc.

[OpenYourEyes]

Hamsaka wrote:
"What additional tools for determining 'truth' from subjective thoughts would you recommend ought to be used, in addition to the 'narrow restriction' of tools currently used?"




My response:
Well this is not just for theists to figure out but also for all who engage in some form of intellectual inquiry. IN a sense, psychology already relies on subjective experience in some cases to develop and classify certain mental disorders, like social anxiety, certain phobias, etc. Perhaps there can be more of a role for it in other fields, as well. For now, I just argue that we shouldn't be as dismissive of subjective experiences as some skeptics tend to be. We can set a level of certainty for them that is somewhere between belief and truth or knowledge unless we have a good reason to call it into question.

[Hamsaka]

Hamsaka wrote:
"What additional tools for determining 'truth' from subjective thoughts would you recommend ought to be used, in addition to the 'narrow restriction' of tools currently used?"

My response:
Well this is not just for theists to figure out but also for all who engage in some form of intellectual inquiry.

Sounds reasonable, as long as the tool produces consistent results, so that it can be relied upon to produce consistent results. I'm not thinking in terms of absolute consistency, which doesn't happen in a 'probabilistic' reality. Just consistently a great majority of the time.

IN a sense, psychology already relies on subjective experience in some cases to develop and classify certain mental disorders, like social anxiety, certain phobias, etc. Perhaps there can be more of a role for it in other fields, as well.

Do you mean psychology (not a specific kind, just in general) could be used as a new tool to determine the quality of a subjective 'truth'?

How would you see that working, potentially?

For now, I just argue that we shouldn't be as dismissive of subjective experiences as some skeptics tend to be. We can set a level of certainty for them that is somewhere between belief and truth or knowledge unless we have a good reason to call it into question.

I'm not one of the skeptics who dismiss subjective experiences entirely, they are part of the spectrum of human experience. What I (intend to) do is prioritize the kinds of information in accordance with the situation. If the solution is just for me, it's a risk I can take with a free conscience. After all, I'm only imposing my own subjectivity on myself. If the solution is applicable to people in general, as religion is often presented, my subjective experience is less reliable. Reliable for what? Reliable for prediction and reliable for explanation and understanding.

From your response to Bust Nak:

My response:
I view thoughts as an exception to my point. In general, subjective experiences tend to be unreliable, misleading, or just wrong when tested. However, thoughts are intersubjective in that all humans experience them subjectively, and yet no one could deny their existence and impact on society since they influence actions like creating technology, improving society, logic, etc.

Thoughts and feelings are 'objective' in the way they are present as a function of having a human brain. Recent improvements in imagery (fMRI for instance) can snap a 'picture' of a thought or feeling happening in real time. There is even progress toward identifying the content of a thought as it happens in real time. If a person who is all hooked up is given an image to focus on, this image can be interpreted or 'seen' by observers.

The human brain churns out thoughts and feelings constantly as a non-volitional process. The human brain produces thoughts like the human stomach produces digestive enzymes in response to food (or the thought of food). If you've ever tried to STOP thinking, about anything, for one minute or five, you'll know you can't. Especially, you can't NOT think about something (don't think about a pink elephant for five minutes).

I don't see how 'thoughts' (or, some kinds of thoughts) stand out as more valid or worthy of belief, considering they are constantly being formed and dissolving. How would one know for sure they are having a 'special' or particularly relevant thought? Are all thoughts about God 'special' or especially relevant? How could this be shown? I don't know how it can be, unless a person ascribes subjectively derived value to the thought(s). So we're back where we started -- or so it looks to me.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 7 by Baz]

Subjective opinions are wonderful things. From such things we get so many rich and entertaining works. But subjective opinions should never masquerade as evidence or proven facts. That's all.

Can we not except that in general they could be fact?
For instance would it not be a fact that some music is soothing and some rousing?

Yes, we can have some objective facts about music. But if you LIKE rousing music or not is subjective because that's an evaluation based on quite personal criteria that isn't necessarily true of all humans.