At what point subjective experience become objective?

[christos]

It’s a thought I’ve had every now and then in my studies…

One man telling a story of an experience, is a subjective experience, you take them for their word or not, with or without evidence…

Ten people, all recalling some event, all experienced subjectively by the individual, you begin to think, perhaps something happened, with or without evidence…

When for example, you have millions having NDEs and have a mystical experience, why do we still state that these are subjective experiences, rather than stating there’s something objective occuring here, that we’re yet to understand

At what point, regardless of evidence do we go, ah yeah, somethings happening here…
What are your views?



I myself have had some pretty life changing experiences with literally zero evidence for them, but one man, myself, telling these stories is not exactly convincing I’ve had those experiences, KNOWING that those ARE my experiences

 

[bobhikes]

In my opinion never, All experiences are subjective and that is fine. Why do they need to be objective?

 

[Massimo2002]

In my opinion never, All experiences are subjective and that is fine. Why do they need to be objective?

So you can magically change reality ?

 

[Twilight Hue]

It’s a thought I’ve had every now and then in my studies…

One man telling a story of an experience, is a subjective experience, you take them for their word or not, with or without evidence…

Ten people, all recalling some event, all experienced subjectively by the individual, you begin to think, perhaps something happened, with or without evidence…

When for example, you have millions having NDEs and have a mystical experience, why do we still state that these are subjective experiences, rather than stating there’s something objective occuring here, that we’re yet to understand

At what point, regardless of evidence do we go, ah yeah, somethings happening here…
What are your views?



I myself have had some pretty life changing experiences with literally zero evidence for them, but one man, myself, telling these stories is not exactly convincing I’ve had those experiences, KNOWING that those ARE my experiences

That's the point. They are your experiences and yours alone and nobody else's.

Objective to you perhaps, but subjective to others.

 

[dybmh]

why do we still state that these are subjective experiences

Because these are inner experiences in the mind of the one having the experience and no one else.

Objective experiences are inner experiences which are shared among more than one person where the individuals sharing the experience agree on the content of the event.

 

[dybmh]

In my opinion never, All experiences are subjective and that is fine. Why do they need to be objective?

Because that is how toddlers learn to speak. That is how people learn to drive a car, or fly an airplane, without crashing them. All student teacher relationships depend on objective experiences.

The denial of objective experiences, in my opinion, is a crutch which people lean on in order to protect themselves from criticism.

 

[osgart]

Is this about taking an objective look at one's own subjective experience and determining if the inner experience exists as it presents itself or is an illusory projection effect that exists on a physical substrate?

 

[F1fan]

Objective means factual. If your understanding of something is factual then it's objective.

Subjective tends to be about values, judgment, and consequences of actions. Those who have beliefs are also subjective as it is a judgment about an idea that may or may not have evidence, but isn't certain.

 

[osgart]

Objective means this: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"

 

[Mock Turtle]

It’s a thought I’ve had every now and then in my studies…

One man telling a story of an experience, is a subjective experience, you take them for their word or not, with or without evidence…

Ten people, all recalling some event, all experienced subjectively by the individual, you begin to think, perhaps something happened, with or without evidence…

When for example, you have millions having NDEs and have a mystical experience, why do we still state that these are subjective experiences, rather than stating there’s something objective occuring here, that we’re yet to understand

At what point, regardless of evidence do we go, ah yeah, somethings happening here…
What are your views?



I myself have had some pretty life changing experiences with literally zero evidence for them, but one man, myself, telling these stories is not exactly convincing I’ve had those experiences, KNOWING that those ARE my experiences

When a mechanism for such mind experiences (NDEs, for example) becomes known - and explaining such - then the numbers don't matter. This is my position, given that there is still much to understand about the human brain and mind, and we know the mind produces enough illusions already. Just look at the number of visual illusions that we know of, besides the irrational nature of much thinking.

If the evidence, as you suggest, is actually there in abundance then the scientific community would likely be more accepting as to NDEs - but they aren't, and as to similar phenomena. Perhaps because there is still a reasonable explanation out there awaiting that doesn't include any afterlife or similar.

 

[Viker]

When for example, you have millions having NDEs and have a mystical experience, why do we still state that these are subjective experiences, rather than stating there’s something objective occuring here, that we’re yet to understand

Some NDEs are made up. Not all NDEs are exactly the same experience. Even when there are commonalities in the telling of NDEs they differ widely enough from culture to culture to suspect something else may be happening. An NDE is going to be different if experienced in Japan, India, Saudi Arabia or the US. Mine differed from any Christian's. There was only an almost indescribable presence. Not darkness and no light. Almost nothing to oblivion. And a sense of peace..... sort of like calm. But mine doesn't count to the great masses. Especially to my culture. Because it doesn't confirm their beliefs and ideas about an afterlife. They'll accuse me of making it up or lying. How would they know? They weren't there with me. No one was there with me.

 

[bobhikes]

So you can magically change reality ?

What you define as magic is also subjective so yes you probably can subjectively.

 

[christos]

Objective means factual. If your understanding of something is factual then it's objective.

Subjective tends to be about values, judgment, and consequences of actions. Those who have beliefs are also subjective as it is a judgment about an idea that may or may not have evidence, but isn't certain.

So if I’m right in this line of reason

You’re sort of saying that if someone has a subjective experience and they KNOW it to be true, then it’s actually Infact objective?

Even with out evidence

 

[bobhikes]

Because that is how toddlers learn to speak. That is how people learn to drive a car, or fly an airplane, without crashing them. All student teacher relationships depend on objective experiences.

The denial of objective experiences, in my opinion, is a crutch which people lean on in order to protect themselves from criticism.

What language do toddlers learn to speak, is it always the same or subjective to how they are raised. What if they can't hear? What if they can't speak? Do all people drive a car the same is that why we all observe the speed limits, the lights and stop signs. Is that why we all have insurance and register our cars. Is that why there are no crashes every week, every day or every hour. Good teachers teach students well bad teachers don't some teachers relate better with certain students and some students relate better with certain teachers, so yes student teacher relations are subjective.

 

[christos]

I have to say, I’m enjoying this, I’m liking all the different viewpoints

 

[wellwisher]

It’s a thought I’ve had every now and then in my studies…

One man telling a story of an experience, is a subjective experience, you take them for their word or not, with or without evidence…

Ten people, all recalling some event, all experienced subjectively by the individual, you begin to think, perhaps something happened, with or without evidence…

When for example, you have millions having NDEs and have a mystical experience, why do we still state that these are subjective experiences, rather than stating there’s something objective occuring here, that we’re yet to understand

At what point, regardless of evidence do we go, ah yeah, somethings happening here…
What are your views?



I myself have had some pretty life changing experiences with literally zero evidence for them, but one man, myself, telling these stories is not exactly convincing I’ve had those experiences, KNOWING that those ARE my experiences

The term subjective is itself subjective. If I asked you to tell me your favorite food, and you told me, X, your choice would be based on your own objective experiences, watching how your body and brain react to different foods. Your favorite is based on the most favorable reaction. That is no different than a scientist collecting data by doing experiments. In this case, the reaction of the brain and body was your analytical tool giving off data analysis, to help you make judgements. You are being objective to this natural feedback.

This will be called subjective, even if you came to your conclusion in an objective way, over many years of taste testing. It would be called subjective because it may not agree with other people, who also may have also objectively concluded that they like a different food and did the same type of side-by-side study, over many years, and their same conclusion was also reached, again and again. This level of objectivity is even better than statistical methods. It not like coffee is good today and nasty tomorrow but has a consistency. It was rational based on how your personal analytical tool; brain and body, was calibrated. Statistical science should be called subjective science since there is always doubt and margin of error. However, based on a subjective standard of subjective, it is called science, which one assumes to be objective.

The problem is the philosophy of science fixates on data from the outside that can be verified by others from the outside. It does not take into account internal analysis, that the individual is aware of and to which you can become objective, like our unique tastes in food.

Subjective taste in food would be more like a snobby fad follower, who will say this is the best food, mostly to position themself in the group. They want to be seen as having good tastes, based on a subjective standard; social hierarchy as a function of the latest fads. Ironically, this satisfies the philosophy of science by everyone agreeing; consensus of snobs, sort of making it more valid than objective taste, even if totally subjective from cradle to grave.

 

[christos]

The term subjective is itself subjective. If I asked you to tell me your favorite food, and you told me, X, your choice would be based on your own objective experiences, watching how your body and brain react to different foods. Your favorite is based on the most favorable reaction. That is no different than a scientist collecting data by doing experiments. In this case, the reaction of the brain and body was your analytical tool giving off data analysis, to help you make judgements. You are being objective to this natural feedback.

This will be called subjective, even if you came to your conclusion in an objective way, over many years of taste testing. It would be called subjective because it may not agree with other people, who also may have also objectively concluded that they like a different food and did the same type of side-by-side study, over many years, and their same conclusion was also reached, again and again. This level of objectivity is even better than statistical methods. It not like coffee is good today and nasty tomorrow but has a consistency. It was rational based on how your personal analytical tool; brain and body, was calibrated. Statistical science should be called subjective science since there is always doubt and margin of error. However, based on a subjective standard of subjective, it is called science, which one assumes to be objective.

The problem is the philosophy of science fixates on data from the outside that can be verified by others from the outside. It does not take into account internal analysis, that the individual is aware of and to which you can become objective, like our unique tastes in food.

Subjective taste in food would be more like a snobby fad follower, who will say this is the best food, mostly to position themself in the group. They want to be seen as having good tastes, based on a subjective standard; social hierarchy as a function of the latest fads. Ironically, this satisfies the philosophy of science by everyone agreeing; consensus of snobs, sort of making it more valid than objective taste, even if totally subjective from cradle to grave.

Great points!

 

[HonestJoe]

At what point, regardless of evidence do we go, ah yeah, somethings happening here…
What are your views?

That question isn't the same as the one in your title though. All experiences are subjective by definition (and, relevant in this context, that includes the experience of hearing someone else describing their experiences). There is also the issue around subjective experiences that our memories of them will often not be entirely consistent with even the initial experience, let alone the reality of what actually happened.

It could be argued that nothing we "know" is truly objective, with that being like infinity, where any amount of subjective evidence will never reach the target. In practice, of course, there are a whole load of things that we treat as objective on the basis that there is so much subjective evidence that it's almost certainly true (though we can still get caught out by that at any scale, from petty individual things to world wide ideas).

On the specific topic of NDEs and the like, the reported subjective experiences aren't all the same anyway so you can't just pile them up to get (closer) to some singular objective truth. Clearly there will be defined causes for such experiences (and claims about them, which isn't necessarily the same thing) but it need not be the same things in every case and it need not be anything beyond our general understanding of the world and human mind for any of them.

The rational focus here is about understanding why everything we experience is subjective and not necessarily consistent with whatever the objective truth in reality might be. After all, you're not really reading these words, your brain is just interpreting varying patterns in the wavelengths of light.

 

[dybmh]

What language do toddlers learn to speak

The language of their parents.

What if they can't hear? What if they can't speak?

Most parents are teaching their children sign-language prior to verbal articulation. The child is much less frustrated when given tools for communicating.

The example you're bringing is a good one, but, you did not go far enough. You are reducing sensory input, but you didn't remove all of it. If someone is in a coma, yes, all of their experiences will be subjective. If someone is dreaming, that's another good example of a purely subjective inner experience.

 

[dybmh]

Do all people drive a car the same is that why we all observe the speed limits, the lights and stop signs. Is that why we all have insurance and register our cars. Is that why there are no crashes every week, every day or every hour.

The crashes are evidence of objective phenomena.