How does subjectivity work?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I see that lots and lots of people focus on evidence, facts, objectivity, forgetting about expressing emotions, opinion, subjectivity. So how does it work? I mean to ask how ordinary subjective statements work, like; "the painting is beautiful", "I love you" etc.

The shortest definition of the logic of subjectivity I've come up with: subjectivity = choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

So to apply this definition to the statement, "the painting is beautiful":

Expression of emotion can only occur with free will, thus choosing the conclusion.

In expressing emotions one chooses between the words ugly and beautiful (simplified).

Both answers ugly and beautiful are equally valid, the validity of an opinion depends on the conclusion being chosen, and not forced.

The word "ugly", means to choose that it is a hate for the way the painthing looks which chooses the word "ugly". Samelike with beauty, then a love for the way the painting looks, chooses the word "beautiful".

So we can see, as fact, the word "beautiful", but we cannot see the asserted love which chooses the word beautiful. The existence of this love is a matter of opinion, which means that one can only reach the conclusion the asserted love is real, by choosing whether or not it is real.

And to state generally, the existence of all what chooses is a matter of opinion.

This is the reason why the most common concept of free will is based around the spirit / soul choosing. The spirit / soul chooses, and the existence of the spirit / soul is a matter of opinion.

If you consider this carefully it is obvious that there could be no evidence for the existence of "what chooses", like the soul. Facts are obtained by evidence *forcing* to a conclusion, resulting in a descriptive model of what is evidenced. You look at the moon, you note down the way it looks this night in a notebook. The moon itself forces the descriptive model you have in your notebook. Those are the facts. But what chooses is obviously free, because it chooses, so any kind of force, including the force of evidence, cannot apply to it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I see that lots and lots of people focus on evidence, facts, objectivity, forgetting about expressing emotions, opinion, subjectivity. So how does it work? I mean to ask how ordinary subjective statements work, like; "the painting is beautiful", "I love you" etc.

The shortest definition of the logic of subjectivity I've come up with: subjectivity = choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

So to apply this definition to the statement, "the painting is beautiful":

Expression of emotion can only occur with free will, thus choosing the conclusion.

In expressing emotions one chooses between the words ugly and beautiful (simplified).

Both answers ugly and beautiful are equally valid, the validity of an opinion depends on the conclusion being chosen, and not forced.

The word "ugly", means to choose that it is a hate for the way the painthing looks which chooses the word "ugly". Samelike with beauty, then a love for the way the painting looks, chooses the word "beautiful".

So we can see, as fact, the word "beautiful", but we cannot see the asserted love which chooses the word beautiful. The existence of this love is a matter of opinion, which means that one can only reach the conclusion the asserted love is real, by choosing whether or not it is real.

And to state generally, the existence of all what chooses is a matter of opinion.

This is the reason why the most common concept of free will is based around the spirit / soul choosing. The spirit / soul chooses, and the existence of the spirit / soul is a matter of opinion.

If you consider this carefully it is obvious that there could be no evidence for the existence of "what chooses", like the soul. Facts are obtained by evidence *forcing* to a conclusion, resulting in a descriptive model of what is evidenced. You look at the moon, you note down the way it looks this night in a notebook. The moon itself forces the descriptive model you have in your notebook. Those are the facts. But what chooses is obviously free, because it chooses, so any kind of force, including the force of evidence, cannot apply to it.

I don't follow how you think that evidence is not a factor in making a judgement, if that is what you are saying.
As for evidence, because of the modern day sciences, which are largely materialistic in thought, they look for material evidence, physical evidence... this is why they do not understand nor comprehend God. God is always found within, and then you see him without. I guess you know that.

Hello and welcome by the way.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Thanks.

Evidence...that's ofcourse all what objectivity and facts are about, not subjectivity and opinion. It's obviously a mistake to start with evidence in explaining subjectivity. In any case, as I explained it, there is nothing not to understand about the procedure of subjectivity. But ofcourse, the procedure is simplified.
- a decision is made, for example left instead of right is chosen
- now to reach a conclusion about what it is that makes the decision turn out left instead of right you require at least 2 alternative answers, for example love and hate
- choose one of them, the result of this choice is an opinion, for example choose to call it hate, then the opinion is that hate is what made the decision turn out left instead of right, you have succesfully expressed your emotions

Evidence and facts are also fully validated, namely the existence of what is chosen is a matter of fact.

 

[JerryL]

Subjective: Opinion. Is based entirely on a perception with no tie to an an external authority.
Objective: Fact. Appealing to an external authority (such as reality)

Absolute: Having traits regardless of the observer.
Relative: Having traits which vary based on the observer.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Thanks.

Evidence...that's ofcourse all what objectivity and facts are about, not subjectivity and opinion. It's obviously a mistake to start with evidence in explaining subjectivity. In any case, as I explained it, there is nothing not to understand about the procedure of subjectivity. But ofcourse, the procedure is simplified.
- a decision is made, for example left instead of right is chosen
- now to reach a conclusion about what it is that makes the decision turn out left instead of right you require at least 2 alternative answers, for example love and hate
- choose one of them, the result of this choice is an opinion, for example choose to call it hate, then the opinion is that hate is what made the decision turn out left instead of right, you have succesfully expressed your emotions

Evidence and facts are also fully validated, namely the existence of what is chosen is a matter of fact.

I have to say I don't fully understand this, or what the point is. Any help?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have to say I don't fully understand this, or what the point is. Any help?

The point is to validate statements like the "painting is beautiful", ordinary subjectivity, but extended from that it also provides validation for statements like "I believe in God", as a matter of faith.

The procedure is simpler than the rules of tic-tac-toe, so if you have some discipline in applying the rules, then there could be no problem in understanding the procedure.

But people have enormous emotional difficulties in accepting subjectivity is valid. Enormous temptation is on the side of making what is good and evil into a matter of fact, instead of having it be a matter of opinion. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they made it into a fact, and upon eating they felt godlike. You can try it for yourself, treat it as fact that something or someone is good, beautiful and loving, or evil, ugly and hateful. You will notice that you start feeling high and low, some of the body's own drugs are released, called endorphins, just by thinking in a certain way. One cannot get away from the temptation of the drugs that the body produces itself, these drugs also perform a neccessary function in normal operation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The point is to validate statements like the "painting is beautiful", ordinary subjectivity, but extended from that it also provides validation for statements like "I believe in God", as a matter of faith.

The procedure is simpler than the rules of tic-tac-toe, so if you have some discipline in applying the rules, then there could be no problem in understanding the procedure.

But people have enormous emotional difficulties in accepting subjectivity is valid. Enormous temptation is on the side of making what is good and evil into a matter of fact, instead of having it be a matter of opinion. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they made it into a fact, and upon eating they felt godlike. You can try it for yourself, treat it as fact that something or someone is good, beautiful and loving, or evil, ugly and hateful. You will notice that you start feeling high and low, some of the body's own drugs are released, called endorphins, just by thinking in a certain way. One cannot get away from the temptation of the drugs that the body produces itself, these drugs also perform a neccessary function in normal operation.

Ok... well one could say that good and evil are fact as we see their results, but it could still be said to be subjective as it is in the eyes of the beholder. As all things are in the mind, then all things are subjective. And to top that, the mind is something we can't see... so the very thing we use to be subjective about objective evidence, has no evidence itself... haha... funny eh

 

[JerryL]

Ok... well one could say that good and evil are fact as we see their results, but it could still be said to be subjective as it is in the eyes of the beholder. As all things are in the mind, then all things are subjective. And to top that, the mind is something we can't see... so the very thing we use to be subjective about objective evidence, has no evidence itself... haha... funny eh

They have invented this thing called an FMRI. We can most certainly see the mind.

Now: that image doesn't let us subjectively experience the mind; nor can I subjectively experience being a rock even though I can see one; but it does let us see it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

They have invented this thing called an FMRI. We can most certainly see the mind.

Now: that image doesn't let us subjectively experience the mind; nor can I subjectively experience being a rock even though I can see one; but it does let us see it.

hmmm.... interesting, but not convinced. I don't know whether we could go so far as to say it shows consciousness, thoughts memories, though correct me if I'm wrong

 

[JerryL]

Can you define "mind"?

I can make you have a religious experience by applying current to the right portions of your brain (God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can make you believe someone is behind you (This Robot Can Make You Feel Like There's A Ghost Behind You | Popular Science

I can make you angry or calm or paranoid with drugs.

And I can map all of these on your brain. Heck: we can sort-of read thoughts.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

hmmm.... interesting, but not convinced. I don't know whether we could go so far as to say it shows consciousness, thoughts memories, though correct me if I'm wrong

Walter Schempp did an exhaustive mathematical analysis of the working of the fMRI device, which analysis was then used to make pictures with a far higher resolution. The mathematics Schempp used to make the analysis is based on the premise that freedom is real. And that the brain can operate in a free way is the only fact neccessary to then make the opinion that the soul chooses. All these people who explain the workings of the brain in terms of archaic cause and effect logic using pictures taken with the fMRI device as evidence, are using a device the working of which denies this cause and effect logic is fundamental to the working of the brain.

If you fantasize about a purple dragon, then it is a fact that you have this purple dragon in your imagination. It is an error to think of what is in the mind as a matter of opinion. Just as well as it is a matter of opinion what chooses the purple dragon in your imagination, it is also a matter of opinion what chooses the way the weather turns out. You can say it is you who chooses the purple dragon, but there is no evidence whatsoever of you as being the owner of your decisions. In the brain one can simply see that things may turn out either way, then next it is chosen, it ends up one way instead of another.

There is no need to identify what it is that chooses in doing mathematics about choices. The mathematics works perfectly without any such identification. What would such mathematics even look like, 39 chooses 1 instead of 2? That makes no sense, we can only get cause and effect logic if we make the result of the choice depend on what it is that chooses.

It is, obviously, just a matter of opinion, a chance for expressing your emotions, to identify what the spirit is by which a decision is made.

 

[JerryL]

The mathematics Schempp used to make the analysis is based on the premise that freedom is real.

It's not a brain-vs-soul issue. Freedom is logically impossible.

It's even worse with omniscience. If you were omniscient, your lack of freedom would be terrible apparent to you (as you could not act contrary to what you pre-know you will do without invalidating your omniscience).

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's not a brain-vs-soul issue. Freedom is logically impossible.

It's even worse with omniscience. If you were omniscient, your lack of freedom would be terrible apparent to you (as you could not act contrary to what you pre-know you will do without invalidating your omniscience).

That's correct. Even God cannot know what He will choose, before He chooses it. But He can know all the possibilities there are to choose. That is still omniscience. Knowing what is not knowable is a logical error, and not more knowledgeable.

To make the concept of freedom work logically you have to place the possibilities in the future. A common error is to place the possibilities in the present, and then sort the possibilities in the present, and call that choosing. That doesn't work, then the criteria you are sorting with will force a predetermined result, and the choice could not have turned out any other way.

 

[JerryL]

That's correct. Even God cannot know what He will choose, before He chooses it. But He can know all the possibilities there are to choose. That is still omniscience. Knowing what is not knowable is a logical error, and not more knowledgeable.

Then you have redefined omniscience... which is fine.

Here's the basic problem. You get to choose something. Doesn't matter what. Let's say you get to pick "red or blue". You pick "red".

So if I could, like, rewind time and watch the same thing play out over and over and over: you would either pick red every time or you would not.

If you pick red every time, then your choice is deterministic; the certain outcome of the conditions at that moment. As such, you were bound to pick red from the beginning of the universe. You had no freedom.

The other option is that you pick red sometimes and blue sometimes. In that case your "freedom" can be described as "random"... which means no choice.

It's logically inescapable. You either chose entirely based on conditions (no freedom) or there's a non-conditional (random) element (no choice). Take your pick.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Then you have redefined omniscience... which is fine.

Here's the basic problem. You get to choose something. Doesn't matter what. Let's say you get to pick "red or blue". You pick "red".

So if I could, like, rewind time and watch the same thing play out over and over and over: you would either pick red every time or you would not.

If you pick red every time, then your choice is deterministic; the certain outcome of the conditions at that moment. As such, you were bound to pick red from the beginning of the universe. You had no freedom.

The other option is that you pick red sometimes and blue sometimes. In that case your "freedom" can be described as "random"... which means no choice.

It's logically inescapable. You either chose entirely based on conditions (no freedom) or there's a non-conditional (random) element (no choice). Take your pick.

I have not redefined omni, it is still omni.

You are caught up in the definitions of words.

What you actually see is possbilities in the future, one of them is made the present, which is a choice. That is of itself completely meaningless yes.

But then you make an opinion on what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does, by expressing your emotions, choose between love and hate for instance. You opine it is love, you have the opinion that love is what makes the decision turn out the way it did, then it is not meaningless anymore.

And so then you can make sophisticated opinions on what is in somebody's soul, who they are as being the owner of all decisions throughout their life.

 

[JerryL]

You are caught up in the definitions of words.

No. I accepted your redefinition and moved on. I didn't touch upon it again at all. Not caught up.

But you glossed over that free choice is impossible.

 

[Brickjectivity]

How does subjectivity work?

The idea of subjectivity is about communication and the inability to always agree. Suppose that I think something is true. Can I transfer that to you? Well, it depends upon you. Perhaps you and I are not the same, so what I perceive may be different from what you perceive. Some people cannot taste certain flavors or see certain colors. Some people see patterns that other's don't. This kind of thing creates subjectivity, but the definition of subjectivity arose out of conversations of philosophers like Hegel. They took it to a whole new level by talking about whether Truth, itself, is subjective.


I've not read the Philosopher, Hegel; but I'm going to use this figure that relates his definition of 'Subjectivity', taken from this link. (Sorry I cannot shrink the image in this frame). As you can see, Subjectivity stands in the midst of 'Syllogism', 'Moments of concept' and 'Judgement'.

First Hegel is talking about logical arguments. A logical argument has assumptions and it has results. *If this ---> then that* The Philosophers were concerned with Truth and determining what could be absolutely proven to be True. They wondered about the nature of truth. They discovered the insurmountable obstacle, Subjectivity. Subjectivity is one of the properties of our world and of our ability to perceive things. It limits the claims that we can make and has a lot of implications for things like Science. For example a Scientist who has a successful experiment cannot then assume that all experimentation is complete. No experimentation is ever complete, because it is always subjective, because human perception is subjective. Subjectivity is the idea behind Scientific method, but it is also considered a deep truth that affects our relationships with each other and our conversations. Should someone be convicted of a crime based on the testimony of only one witness? Why can two people almost never agree perfectly about everything? Subjectivity limits us.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The stereotype of the atheist is that they regard good and evil as fact. For example the Sheldon character, or mister Spock. Sheldon will denote the fact of which women are beatiful and ugly, straight to their face, and try to craft a superior race of people. The emotionless mister Spock, will quantify all life and death issues, calculate what is the right thing to do, given the facts about what is good and evil to sort out the optimal result.

I've talked to a lot of atheists, and 100 percent of them reject subjectivity. Even most of them will know that good and evil are a matter of opinion, they still do not know how to make an opinion, and end up classifying opinion as a subcategory to facts.

How does subjectivity work?

The clue is in that both the statements;
"the painting is beautiful" and,
"the painting is ugly", are valid.

With facts only 1 conclusion is ever valid, the exhaustively accurate representation. "There are 5 sheep in the meadow". Not 4, not 6, only 5 is the valid answer. But with opinions there are always more than 1 valid answers, they are totally different from facts.

Obviously then an opinion is arrived at by choosing it from several available options. That is why there is protection of the freedom of opinion and religion in the law.

The conclusion the painting is beautiful is arrived at by choosing it from the options ugly and beautiful. Expression of emotion occurs only with free will, thus choosing.

All choosing is expression of emotion. If somebody chooses to take out the garbage when the wife asks for it, in stead of laying on the couch, than that may be judged an expression of love.

But subjectivity is not just expression of emotion, it is also saying what the emotions are. To say the painting is beautiful, means to say you have a love for the way the painting looks in your emotions. So subjectivity is an expression of emotions, about emotions.

And as we remember expression can only occur by choosing, it means then that subjectivity is to choose about what it is that chooses.

That means that since both conclusions ugly and beautiful are valid, it also means that both conclusions the love is real, and the love is
not real are valid.

Think about it if the existence of the love were a fact, then this person could not have reached the conclusion that the painting is ugly. Then that love would force him to say the painting is beautiful, and the conclusion the painting is ugly could not be reached.

But if the existence of the love is a matter of opinion, then this person still could have reached the conclusion the painting is ugly, regardless that he said the painting is beautiful.

And of course this is exactly what atheists object to. To have love be real, but the existence of it is a matter of faith, and there is no evidence for it whatsoever.That is the spiritual domain, which chooses the way the material domain turns out.

In my experience all atheists reject subjectivity, without any exception, a full 100 percent of them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are you referring to 'Hard athiests' which are those who insist that they know there isn't a God? I do not think most atheists are in that category. Most are in the agnostic category, and they definitely appreciate subjectivity. You are perhaps thinking about a very small number of people.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you referring to 'Hard athiests' which are those who insist that they know there isn't a God? I do not think most atheists are in that category. Most are in the agnostic category, and they definitely appreciate subjectivity. You are perhaps thinking about a very small number of people.

It's not the case that they accept subjectivity. You have to get into the details of it, because they will simply define subjectivity differently, and all words associated to it. So they say, I accept subjectivity, by which they mean that opinions are a function of the uniqueness of the brain. In extremes they then might go into racism, as that different races have different opinions, but usually they will go into the complexity of the brain, how there are trillions of possible configurations, implying that the uniqueness of the configuration is what makes for opinions.