At what point subjective experience become objective?

[F1fan]

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

No. Let's say that Jim has been exposed to Christian ideas his whole life, and told they are true. And then one day when he is 19 years old he is in a car accident and during the trauma he hears the voice of God telling him he will be OK. As he recovers he is certain God exists and he cites his experience.

Well no doubt he had an experience, but it is all the ideas he was exposed to in life that he used to cope is what created the experience. We understand people have experiences all the time, it is how they create them with the conscious and unconscious beliefs that makes them seem to be something that isn't completely objective or accurate.

Another example of subjective experiences is how two friends can go to a concert and while one is not enjoying it the other is having the time of his life. Same event, both having a similar experience, but each has a different experience due to whatever their state of minds, and other factors.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at objectivity in science, this is limited by the tools you have to gather data. For example, before the invention of the telescope, at the time of Galileo, Scientists only could use their eyes to see the heavens. At that natural magnification, they could not objectively infer the sun was the center of the solar system. They could not see the smoking gun evidence that would be needed. They could only be objective to telescope free evidence, that strongly suggested the sun was not the center. They could be objective to what they could see, but they drew a subjective conclusion, since it was not correct. But they would assume both the data and theory was objective. Massaging limited data can result in a logical conclusion but it may not be objective to reality, due to missing data you cannot yet see.

Typically in science, it is the innovation in tools and instruments that comes first and allows even more objective data, leading to a revision of the previous generation of subjective theories; relative to complete truth. The new space telescopes altered many theories. A consensus in science is based on the latest subjective theories, limited to what they all can see; consensus of snobs. An objective scientist understands theory is subjective until steady state is reached. Many people will go along to be counted in the group, rather than point out that new data will appear in the future, due to improving tools and experiments.

If science had all the final answers, they could all retire. But since science is a growing industry, subjectivity is rampart. This is why internal brain data is important. This helps one self analyze your own behavior and urges, to make sure this is not the emperor new clothes, so you can be part of the consensus of subjectivity, for the advantages that can offer that has less to due with science.

This is why I dislike Statistical science. This same math is used by politicians, sales, marketing, polling, Casios, etc. These are all the sales tools needed to create fads in science; consensus of subjectivity, called being objective, since most will want to see it this way. With Climate change research there was plenty of money and projects with money creating rose colored glasses, that makes it easier to see; as was staged by politicians, sales, marketing, polling, project Casios, etc. Natural Climate change slot machines did not pay out as good.

When I came out of school, the Chemical Industry was the place to be, based on good paying jobs. Once you get one, as a good young employee who sees a future, you buy into the company's mission and the better spokesman you are, the better the path for promotion. Inside each company a consensus of scientists will form; our widgets are the best.

If any ethical doubts forms in your mind; due to self reflection, I do not wish to be a yes man, it is best to stay quiet rather than try to make waves, since that can stall your career; political science in science is part of an inner world of subjective and objective motivations of the consensus. The point is objective and subjective are not as clear cut as people think or show.

 

[F1fan]

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…

If there are ten people from a community that all call the police and explain how they were abducted by aliens and were subjected to medical experiments it would be doubted at face value. But if these ten did not know each other, and there were calls about UFOs in the area the night of these abductions, and there were mysterious injuries on the ten claimants, and a high degree of radiation from the ten that can be explained, and other bits of evidence than can't be explained, well, their claims have some level of objectivity that are not only mental.

We know people have experiences all the time, are they fabricated or authentic as we believe them to be?

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

I seriously doubt the millions having NDE. But let's note that these people never suffered brain death, only climinal death, meaning their brains were still alive and processing. Why don't all people who had clinical death not report a NDE? How many who claimed a NDE had heard of them first? Studies into NDE reveals these are brains suffering oxygen debt and in trauma, and as we know many people suffering trauma seek illusions and beliefs to cope. It's common to fall back on comforting ideas, like a God existing and an afterlife, to soothe the anxiety of death.

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

Things hapven. Are they happening as we believe them? When a person masturbates they have a sexual experience, but it's not with a partner. They tend to create an experience through fantasy, yet there was an exprience.

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 difference between an objective thinker and a person who believes they had improbable expriences is whether they understand their mind's own role in how the expriences were formed. Many want to believe what they want to believe, and they will create expriences that "prove" their beliefs are true to themselves. It won't convince others.

 

[bobhikes]

The language of their parents.



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.

What is their parent's language, will a child brought up in Boston USA speak the same as a child brought up in Alabama USA or a child brought up in London England. What if one of the parents is From an English-speaking country and the other from a Spanish speaking country, what do the children speak.

 

[bobhikes]

The crashes are evidence of objective phenomena.

Then why do we need lawyers to sort out the results. Typically, all parties involved have different views of how the crash happened.

 

[firedragon]

Subjective experience becomes objective when it can be measured, verified, and agreed upon by multiple observers. Prove it like a theory, provide proofs or evidences that could be objectively verified, build consistency with calibration, etc and it will become objective.

 

[dybmh]

What is their parent's language, will a child brought up in Boston USA speak the same as a child brought up in Alabama USA or a child brought up in London England. What if one of the parents is From an English-speaking country and the other from a Spanish speaking country, what do the children speak.

The words have an objective meaning between the parent and the child regardless of language. The over-arching phenomena is the "teacher/student" relationship. If there was no objective phenomena, then, there would be no teacher/student relationship. The student would be forced to learn everything individually and alone.

Then why do we need lawyers to sort out the results. Typically, all parties involved have different views of how the crash happened.

You are ignoring the objective details about the crash. If there is no objective phenomena, why is evidence brought before the court? Why do insurance adjusters take photos of the scene of the accident and the condition of the vehicles which were damaged?

Both exist: subjective phenomena and objective phenomena. Religious individuals deny objective phenomena to shield themselves from criticism.

---

Religious person: "I met God in yesterday while I was meditating"

Skeptic: "Doubt it. Can you show me God, or teach me to do what you did?"

Religious person: "Probably not, everything is subjective."

Skeptic: "Then you probably didn't meet God, you're just imagining it."

Religious person: "Everything is imaginary. There are no objective events. I win. I met God and you cannot convince me otherwise."

Skeptic: "This is silly. Let me drop a sledge hammer on your foot and let's see if there are no objective events."

Religious person: "You are being mean! Why are you attacking my spiritual path? No good can come from that."

Skeptic: "Not true, a lot of harm has been caused by the sort of irrational faulty mindset you are preaching at me right now. It would be good for you to recognize that your experience with God, if that happened, is really only happening in your own mind. Why isn't that good enough for you? It's still awesome that God spoke to you in your own mind, isn't it?"

Religious person: "Why won't you believe me?"

Skeptic: "Because it's silly, and you don't seem to know why it's silly, and that is making it even more silly, and sad."

 

[Nakosis]

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

IMO, as long as you're conscious, it's subjective. The only way it gets to be object is if your just a lifeless body that's at the mercy of the universe.

 

[bobhikes]

The words have an objective meaning between the parent and the child regardless of language. The over-arching phenomena is the "teacher/student" relationship. If there was no objective phenomena, then, there would be no teacher/student relationship. The student would be forced to learn everything individually and alone.



You are ignoring the objective details about the crash. If there is no objective phenomena, why is evidence brought before the court? Why do insurance adjusters take photos of the scene of the accident and the condition of the vehicles which were damaged?

Both exist: subjective phenomena and objective phenomena. Religious individuals deny objective phenomena to shield themselves from criticism.

---

Religious person: "I met God in yesterday while I was meditating"

Skeptic: "Doubt it. Can you show me God, or teach me to do what you did?"

Religious person: "Probably not, everything is subjective."

Skeptic: "Then you probably didn't meet God, you're just imagining it."

Religious person: "Everything is imaginary. There are no objective events. I win. I met God and you cannot convince me otherwise."

Skeptic: "This is silly. Let me drop a sledge hammer on your foot and let's see if there are no objective events."

Religious person: "You are being mean! Why are you attacking my spiritual path? No good can come from that."

Skeptic: "Not true, a lot of harm has been caused by the sort of irrational faulty mindset you are preaching at me right now. It would be good for you to recognize that your experience with God, if that happened, is really only happening in your own mind. Why isn't that good enough for you? It's still awesome that God spoke to you in your own mind, isn't it?"

Religious person: "Why won't you believe me?"

Skeptic: "Because it's silly, and you don't seem to know why it's silly, and that is making it even more silly, and sad."

There are no objective phenomena all phenomena require the mental acuity of the individual. Sight, Feel, Sound, etc are all determined by the experiences of the individual. What for you is hot or hard or spicy for me could be cold, soft and mild. Just because you have consensus that your object is something doesn't mean its objective. Furthermore, all phenomena change constantly. From moment to moment no phenomena are the same. Yes, the changes are sometimes small, but they are real and add up the longer you observe them. No two individuals can be in the same space and the same time so their references are always different for all phenomena observed. There is no objective world only subjective, whether it is subjective to a specific mind or subjective to a specific time.

 

[Quintessence]

Objectivity is a myth of convenience and necessity. That is, it's a story humans tell themselves to help make sense of the world because to do otherwise tends to be counterproductive. Objectivity is impossible for humans - as they are neither omniscient or omnipresent. What humans can do is a process of intersubjective verification and intersubjective understanding. They compare their own subjective experiences amongst each other and come up with what they mythologically call "objective" (even though it is not, really). Put another way, what humans call "objective" is a cultural consensus of those peoples' subjective experiences.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So you can magically change reality ?

You can't change reality, but you can change your experience and understanding of it. This does not require magic.

 

[sayak83]

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.

There is a terminology problem here. No experience is objective. But experiences can reliably have features that can also be experienced by other people and knowledge of these features can be shared. That helps us infer an objective reality whose subjective experiences we have.

 

[dybmh]

There is a terminology problem here. No experience is objective. But experiences can reliably have features that can also be experienced by other people and knowledge of these features can be shared. That helps us infer an objective reality whose subjective experiences we have.

Yes, and thank you. I should have used the word "events" not "experiences"? I used "events" instead in other posts in other places, but I was not consistent. Thank you for noticing the mistake . There are objective events and objective phenomena? I agree that experiences cannot be objective as you described above.

 

[christos]

So…

Is what we’re saying or sort of all pointing towards…

Is the idea that there Infact is no such thing as objectivity ultimately?

Makes a lot of sense to me

 

[dybmh]

So…

Is what we’re saying or sort of all pointing towards…

Is the idea that there Infact is no such thing as objectivity ultimately?

Makes a lot of sense to me

I'm saying the opposite. I'm very likely expressing a minority opinion among the contributors to this thread.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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?

These are increasing from more subjective to more objective:

• How one experiences life - what's pretty, what's tasty, disposition/mood, assorted aches and pains, etc..
• How people like you experience life - what it's like to be a woman or an American or a Christian
• How human beings experience life - what it's like to think in words, walk upright, or to be able to see light in the rainbow but not in the infrared or ultraviolet; the human condition (see * below)
• How conscious beings experience life - what it's like to want, to intend, to eat, or to ambulate. Life from all (conscious) perspectives.

This last category includes all perspectives but is still subjective. Ultimate objectivity means from no perspective, that is, direct experience of what lies outside of the mind - something impossible and self-contradictory: "the experience of having no perspective." The best we can do to approach objectivity is to reach consensus: "Interobserver Agreement (IOA) refers to the degree to which two or more independent observers report the same observed values after measuring the same events."

* Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat? (Speculates about how bats experience life, or the chiropteran condition)

 

[christos]

These are increasing from more subjective to more objective:

• How one experiences life - what's pretty, what's tasty, disposition/mood, assorted aches and pains, etc..
• How people like you experience life - what it's like to be a woman or an American or a Christian
• How human beings experience life - what it's like to think in words, walk upright, or to be able to see light in the rainbow but not in the infrared or ultraviolet; the human condition (see * below)
• How conscious beings experience life - what it's like to want, to intend, to eat, or to ambulate. Life from all (conscious) perspectives.

This last category includes all perspectives but is still subjective. Ultimate objectivity means from no perspective, that is, direct experience of what lies outside of the mind - something impossible and self-contradictory: "the experience of having no perspective." The best we can do to approach objectivity is to reach consensus: "Interobserver Agreement (IOA) refers to the degree to which two or more independent observers report the same observed values after measuring the same events."

* Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat? (Speculates about how bats experience life, or the chiropteran condition)

That’s a really good way of putting it

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

If you look at objectivity in science, this is limited by the tools you have to gather data. For example, before the invention of the telescope, at the time of Galileo, Scientists only could use their eyes to see the heavens. At that natural magnification, they could not objectively infer the sun was the center of the solar system. They could not see the smoking gun evidence that would be needed. They could only be objective to telescope free evidence, that strongly suggested the sun was not the center. They could be objective to what they could see, but they drew a subjective conclusion, since it was not correct. But they would assume both the data and theory was objective. Massaging limited data can result in a logical conclusion but it may not be objective to reality, due to missing data you cannot yet see.

Typically in science, it is the innovation in tools and instruments that comes first and allows even more objective data, leading to a revision of the previous generation of subjective theories; relative to complete truth. The new space telescopes altered many theories. A consensus in science is based on the latest subjective theories, limited to what they all can see; consensus of snobs. An objective scientist understands theory is subjective until steady state is reached. Many people will go along to be counted in the group, rather than point out that new data will appear in the future, due to improving tools and experiments.

If science had all the final answers, they could all retire. But since science is a growing industry, subjectivity is rampart. This is why internal brain data is important. This helps one self analyze your own behavior and urges, to make sure this is not the emperor new clothes, so you can be part of the consensus of subjectivity, for the advantages that can offer that has less to due with science.

This is why I dislike Statistical science. This same math is used by politicians, sales, marketing, polling, Casios, etc. These are all the sales tools needed to create fads in science; consensus of subjectivity, called being objective, since most will want to see it this way. With Climate change research there was plenty of money and projects with money creating rose colored glasses, that makes it easier to see; as was staged by politicians, sales, marketing, polling, project Casios, etc. Natural Climate change slot machines did not pay out as good.

When I came out of school, the Chemical Industry was the place to be, based on good paying jobs. Once you get one, as a good young employee who sees a future, you buy into the company's mission and the better spokesman you are, the better the path for promotion. Inside each company a consensus of scientists will form; our widgets are the best.

If any ethical doubts forms in your mind; due to self reflection, I do not wish to be a yes man, it is best to stay quiet rather than try to make waves, since that can stall your career; political science in science is part of an inner world of subjective and objective motivations of the consensus. The point is objective and subjective are not as clear cut as people think or show.

I agree with you that there is nothing that is purely objective, and objectivity is limited by the tools at hand. In fact, the tools themselves can be misleading. But underlying all this is what is the purpose of this question?

We are interested in objectivity not for itself but because it helps us evolve in the right direction. So, we have to look for evidences that help us evolve in the right direction and that will be in relation to the questions that confront us. The correct step therefore, is not to worry about subjectivity and objectivity but to look at the questions we ask.



Number one, what is the problem at hand?

Number two, what is the data that will help solve that problem?

Number three, try to solve that problem as objectively as possible.

I think this whole infatuation with objectivity and subjectivity is misplaced.

 

[LeftyLen]

Empirical objective evidence pitted against religious (subjective) faith, is often of no consequence. Two examples,
1977 when 15 I observed an odd manifestation by several students who attended the church school (fundamentalist) I was compelled to attend. The older teen students, juniors and seniors were on a museum field trip at a natural history museum chaperoned by a members of the faculty. Many of the students had their hands outstretched vigorously attempting to block a panoramic view of fossils on display. The students blocking the views with frantic arm waving engaged did so to visually block the plethora of fossils on display at the La Bra Tar Pits. The formal position of the church school was such fossils did not exist, so like myself years before protecting one part of my anatomy from harm they were protecting another part of their anatomy from substantial pain, the pain of beholding fossils. The objective fact of the fossils uncompromised existence was in complete opposition to the narrative of the church school, thus through strenuous gesturing the fossils were, as best as possible relegated out of existence.



The teens who rejected the reality in front of them were not chaperoned by the attending school faculty, their true chaperon an entrenched dogma. Such actions not acts of faith but acts of denial. for them objective reality did not exist.

1985 was my first and only experience doing jury duty. A man was on trial for nearly beating his wife to death. Through the beaten woman never testified she was wheeled out in a wheelchair to sit by the prosecutors table, a maneuver by the prosecution so the jury would see her condition.



The defense stated the claims of beatings were ‘overrated’ and the Father only committed the acts when drunk thus according to his lawyer the defendant should receive probation, attend counseling as well as join an A.A. program. The measures proposed according to the lawyer would enable the man to ‘save his family.’ The lawyer promoted the narrative a guilty verdict would doom the family, and we the jury would be guilty of perpetrating a family tragedy.



The two older sons on the witness stand stood by their Fathers lawyer asserting it was all a private family matter, they admitting their Dad needed assistance for his problem, but no incarceration. The boys made an audacious claim their Mom sustained most injuries falling down while drunk. The sons claimed their youngest sibling age eleven was the real culprit by recording the beating then calling the police ranting about Mom being beat up. On the stand two neighbors also came to the defense of the accused man, the neighbors claiming the father was a nice man, a man who would ‘do anything for you.’ Both of the neighbors claimed the youngest sibling was troubled and the so-called crime exaggerated by the youngest eleven year old boy who wanted attention. The defendants friends and family supported the notion that as the boys camera recording was done in secret this was deception rendering the youngest sibling the real issue, he having a problem, not the beating of their Mother.



Besides the hospital report and photos of the beaten woman the most salient evidence presented was the 16mm video the young boy took of the mothers beating. Just before the prosecutions showing of the video the defense lawyer in frustration tried a last minute effort to suppress the revealing video. The defense claimed ‘full discovery’ of the video had not been made but failed as the judge ruled it admissible. Watching the video we saw the eleven-year-old hiding under the kitchen table, pointing the camera from floor level recording the grisly affair. The three-minute video displayed the fathers arms lifting and falling on the woman's back over and over as she tried to get up. The video displayed the pommeling continue as the woman gave up trying to stand, attempting to crawl away. In the jury room the entire jury was enraged by the events displayed on the video. The jury accepted the clear objective fact that the woman was brutally beaten rendering all the preceding posturing by others as pure obfuscation, first the hospital records telling some of the story, the video telling the rest.



The most salient aspect of the entire trial for me was not the graphic video of the woman being beaten. What garnished my attention was seeing family members, sons and others in the courtroom blocking any view of the video as it was screened in the courtroom. Objective reality the rest of the family, supportive neighbors could not accept. As the video played in the court the family blocked with arms and hands, as best was possible the revealing video, all testifying to consummate denial. After the trial the older sons in the court hallway ‘doubled-down’ on their assertion the uppity camera holding youngest sibling was an incorrigible ‘trouble-maker, ’ out to blemish the family name. The older boys attempted affirmation the young boys ‘deception’ rendered the boy as the immoral party in the family drama. In the jury room the deflective denial of the family the jury, nor I was interested in.



If I had been able to vote I would have voted the wife beater guilty, but a plea deal was made so the jury never voted on the matter and so were released by the judge. I held facts, truth as paramount, all other considerations a distant second. As for me the objective fact the woman was beaten was primary, all the defense and familial intrigue a convoluted web of deceit, a detailed contrived smoke screen designed to smother truth. For them subjective belief was reality.

 

[LeftyLen]

So…

Is what we’re saying or sort of all pointing towards…

Is the idea that there Infact is no such thing as objectivity ultimately?

Makes a lot of sense to me

That is more in line with the Hindu MAYA concept in which all is delusion..