Kevin's Watch

Avatar, I know what you mean. I, too, value individuality, self-determination, freewill, responsibility, etc. No self-respecting existentialist could feel otherwise.

However, this might be one of those areas in which we'll have to accept some paradox. We clearly are not strictly individuals. No man is a solipsist. (At least no sane man.) Just from the fact that we can speak to each other using these little symbols shows how intertwined we are. Even from opposite sides of this planet, we share enough of a heritage, culture, history to enable our minds to open up to one another and pass thoughts back and forth. Neither of us invented this language in which we express our individuality. The fabric of our thoughts is dependent upon our parents passing this language to us. They shaped our minds in such a way to make us capable of communication. This is not an example of mere teaching/learning facts. They did more than teach us a vocabulary and grammar rules. They opened up the speech-space for us, guided us into a virtual reality that has its roots in Anglo-Saxons centuries ago (and beyond).

Much of what we like to think of as componants of our individuality--our thoughts, our creative outpouring--would not be possible without being shaped from birth to take our place within this culture, within this context. We are inextricably tied to this centuries-old structure. You can't even assert your individuality without making use of a consciousness shaped by an entire society of dead and living humans.

As Heidegger might say, our being is being-in-the-world, and being-with-others. These are the bare facts of our existence, and any philosophical distance we might try to create between us and the world, or us and others, can only be done by temporarily "suspending" our activity in these circles in order to reflect upon them. (But such reflection is still a mode of being in the world and being with others--though indirect and in many ways inauthentic.)

Like I've said before, there are certain contexts where it is important to make the distinction of individuals (property rights, civil rights, personal liability, etc.). However, these distinctions wouldn't be necessary in the first place if we weren't already a great big group of people, with needs and wants mixing and conflicting in a complex manner. While these social inventions may be beneficial, they are still inventions. An individual with rights, property, and responsbility is certainly not our "natural" state.

Does this mean I'm advocating anarchy in order to be authentic? No. I think there are some necessary fictions, on our way up from animal to "god." But this is just one stage. We'll find better ways to embrace our interdependence someday. Once individual physical survival and individual wealth are negligible factors, you'll see the need for policies which protect the social concept of "the individual" greatly diminish. With it, the ontological concept of "the individual" will have less importance, too.

You're talking about communication, experience, and learning. I don't disagree with any of it.

But I don't see how individuals being able to communicate, individuals having similar experiences or similar skills, or individuals sharing a culture, are an argument for there not being true individuality.

If individuality was really anything less than concrete, then we could perhaps find an example where the line is blurred. For example, something happening to one individual which affects another individual in an unexplained way.

In fact, everything you posited - communication, cultural heritage, learning from others - points towards individuality being absolutely real. Individuals would not need to communicate if they were not in fact distinct individuals. Individuals would not need to learn from others if they were not different individuals. All of these things are essentially ways of one individual conveying what they know to another individual.

If individuality was an illusion, if individuals really blur into each other than being distinct, then there must be some times where the need to convey information from one to another is not necessary. At least sometimes.

Yes, we have common responses due to common hardware. Instincts are the same between people. Responses to certain stimuli are similar, and can be shaped by common cultural heritage. That's not what I am talking about. That's two people making the same computation and coming up with the same result; it is not one person conveying information to another.

Being an individual means being seperate. If we are not distinctly seperate, then there is a place where we are joined. What is that place? What does it look like?

Wayfriend, in one sense, I'm being figurative with my language. You're absolutely right that we are individuals, if for no other reason than the fact that we all have separate bodies. In addition, we also have a consciousness to which no one else has access (unless we want them to, that is . . . ).

However, in another sense, I'm being literal. Conscious beings are not like any other physical object. Physical objects are completely individual. When you put two of them side-by-side, they aren't "together" in any meaningful sense (they are still just as individual as when spread far apart). Physical objects are only "objectively present."

Contrast this with two humans sitting next to each other, engaged in a conversation. We are not merely "objectively present" with each other; we share a mental space that the rock can't share. Consciousness has a quality of "directedness," or intentionality. It is about things, directed to things. Rocks and chairs aren't like this. They are not about anything else. They are truly separate entities.

What does it mean for an entity to be about another entity? (Think about that for a moment . . . it's quite spooky.) Consciousness is consciousness OF something. Take that "something" away (the object of consciousness) and you no longer have consciousness. There is no such thing as consciousness without an "object of consciousness." The two are inextricably tied. This connection is fundamental to the existence and structure of consciousness itself. That's what consciousness is. A joining of subject and object. Part of us--the most important part, in fact--has as its essence a quality that necessarily ties it to the world and to others, that joins itself with the world and others, and makes them an essential part of itself.

Wayfriend wrote: If individuality was really anything less than concrete, then we could perhaps find an example where the line is blurred. For example, something happening to one individual which affects another individual in an unexplained way.

I'd say that loved ones dying is a perfect example. Can anyone explain grief? Why should the absence of one individual affect another individual if they are truly separate? In fact, all of our emotional bonds are kind of "spooky action from a distance." The ability to have your self tangled up in the fate of another is something quite unique in the universe.

Wayfriend wrote:Individuals would not need to communicate if they were not in fact distinct individuals. Individuals would not need to learn from others if they were not different individuals. All of these things are essentially ways of one individual conveying what they know to another individual.

Do you ever find out what you believe by writing it down? Or by describing it to another person? Or merely talking to yourself? What you're describing above is the same thing: why do individuals need to talk to themselves? Why do we need to work things out in our head? Shouldn't we already know what we believe? For myself, I often find that I don't know what I believe on a certain subject until I actually write it out. I'm not talking about deciding what I believe, but actually verbalizing it. I come to know myself in much the same way that others come to know me: from listening to myself speak, and reading what I write. Since this is the case, should I think of my subconsciousness and my consciousness as two separate individuals in need of communication? No. And if we're not going to make such a distinction within an individual, I see no reason for this communication issue to necessitate distinctions between individuals, either. There's nothing inherently contradictory with a universal consciousness needing to talk to itself.

When I say that communication illustrates our transpersonal bonds, I'm not talking about merely the act of communication itself. Sure, we can all see how two minds might be figuratively "joined" during events of mutual comprehension. But I'm talking about something deeper than the act. I'm talking about the possibility of communication, what makes this transmission of ideas and feelings possible in the first place. Two people on the verge of communicating are like two ends of a phone connection: the channel is open. We share a mental space. What makes this space possible is our collective experiences which allows us to understand the words we'll be using. A common ground of experience gleaned from living in the same world. Not merely understanding the definitions of the words, but participating in the "language games" we all play. We learn language as a way to interact with the consciousness of others, not merely as a way to interact with definitions of terms.

Wayfriend wrote:If individuality was an illusion, if individuals really blur into each other than being distinct, then there must be some times where the need to convey information from one to another is not necessary. At least sometimes.

Don't you have experiences like this with people close to you, where the two of you know how each other is feeling without saying anything? Maybe you could say there is nonverbal communication going on, a meaningful glance, perhaps. But just the fact that a glance can have meaning--merely seeing each other--shows how tightly our consciousness can be tied.

Wayfriend wrote:If we are not distinctly seperate, then there is a place where we are joined. What is that place? What does it look like?

I'd say it looks like the world.
Sure, it sounds like a smartass answer. But again, I'm being literal. The world IS our collective perceptions of it--at least the world we live in. There might be a physical universe that was here long before us, and exists external to our perceptions of it, but that's not the universe we live in. We live within our perceptual "spheres." If yours is individual and separate from mine, then how do we ever cross over these boundaries to share our worlds? How do we communicate and know each other? Your perceptions are purely subjective. No one else can perceive them. Thus, the world you inhabit is purely subjective. On the individual hypothesis, how come we're not all solipsists? At some point, you're going to have to admit the paradoxical nature of such a hypothesis, because it is paradoxical for a separate individual living within a purely subjective world to ever transcend himself in order to communicate and know the world.

Either we're each individuals who "magically" transcend our own individuality, or we're all One who "magically" appear to be separate. Both views are equally hard to talk about, but I think more problems are resolved by recognizing our fundamental unity.

Malik23 wrote:Why should the absence of one individual affect another individual if they are truly separate?

Being interdependent doesn't imply that individuals are not discrete. If it does to you, you have made a leap which you have not explained. I would not agree with that conclusion left as it is.

Malik23 wrote:There is no such thing as consciousness without an "object of consciousness." The two are inextricably tied. This connection is fundamental to the existence and structure of consciousness itself. That's what consciousness is. A joining of subject and object. Part of us--the most important part, in fact--has as its essence a quality that necessarily ties it to the world and to others, that joins itself with the world and others, and makes them an essential part of itself.

Same comment. You have started with "awareness", and have concluded that being aware of something means sharing an identity with something. The leap is unexplained. I would not agree with this as it stands.

Malik23 wrote:Do you ever find out what you believe by writing it down? Or by describing it to another person? Or merely talking to yourself? What you're describing above is the same thing: why do individuals need to talk to themselves? Why do we need to work things out in our head? Shouldn't we already know what we believe? For myself, I often find that I don't know what I believe on a certain subject until I actually write it out. I'm not talking about deciding what I believe, but actually verbalizing it. I come to know myself in much the same way that others come to know me: from listening to myself speak, and reading what I write. Since this is the case, should I think of my subconsciousness and my consciousness as two separate individuals in need of communication? No. And if we're not going to make such a distinction within an individual, I see no reason for this communication issue to necessitate distinctions between individuals, either. There's nothing inherently contradictory with a universal consciousness needing to talk to itself.

I have also had the experience of finding out what I believe only after explaining it to another person. However, when it's happened to me, it's been because that's the first time I truly thought about whatever the topic was. I found that many of my thoughts were very vague, because I had never really thought about them. I would even catch myself with contradictory beliefs, and be forced to put quality time into the issue, eventually choosing a side, or realizing I couldn't choose a side.


Oddly, I agree with Wayfriend and Malik. I agree with Wayfriend that we are individual, even if we're interdependent on other people and things in ways that non-living and non-conscious things are. (And non-living and non-conscious things are extremely interdependent on other things.)

But Malik's view is beautiful. Even if I don't see it in the literal sense he does, I see it in the spiritual sense. It is a very satisfying way of being. And if all viewed it the same way, the world might be a paradise. We would be less likely to hurt others if we viewed them as ourselves.

And, in fact, it is literally true in at least some ways:

Malik23 wrote:What does it mean for an entity to be about another entity? (Think about that for a moment . . . it's quite spooky.) Consciousness is consciousness OF something. Take that "something" away (the object of consciousness) and you no longer have consciousness. There is no such thing as consciousness without an "object of consciousness." The two are inextricably tied. This connection is fundamental to the existence and structure of consciousness itself. That's what consciousness is. A joining of subject and object. Part of us--the most important part, in fact--has as its essence a quality that necessarily ties it to the world and to others, that joins itself with the world and others, and makes them an essential part of itself.

Entirely true. We would not be conscious if not for other things. It's not an automatic thing. If we were born into sense-deprivation tanks, all our physical needs taken care of in ways that we couldn't sense (fed through IV tubes that we couldn't feel, etc), we would not become conscious. Consciousness could not exist in a vacuum. It only develops through sensory input and interaction. (For fantasy examples, think of the One Forest before the Appointed went to it. Or the reality that became the Beyonder before the Molecule Man opened a pin-hole into that reality.)

Wayfriend wrote: Being interdependent doesn't imply that individuals are not discrete. If it does to you, you have made a leap which you have not explained. I would not agree with that conclusion left as it is.

I'm not really trying to make a logically sound argument (because I'm dealing with things I believe are inherently paradoxical). Rather, I'm trying more to present an altered sense of reality, a different view.

With my grief example, I wasn't merely saying we are interdependent, nor merely trying to show a causal link. Instead, I was trying to show that there is some sense in which "you are in me" and "I am in you." It feels like a part of YOU dies when someone whom you love passes away. Usually, we employ this type of language as a figurative way to describe our memories of people (e.g. "You'll live on in my memories," or "you'll always be here so long as there are people who remember you."). But I think our personal connections with others go well beyond building up a series of memories. I think we truly do intermingle ourselves. And intermingling of selves is more than mere interdependence.

But I suppose you can say that two intermingling entities still retain much that is separate. On that point, I'd agree with you. I think that we DO start out as individuals, and our maturing process is an ever increasing connection with the world and with others. But that process is far from complete. We find a multitude of ways to "fall away" from our own transcendence every day.

Wayfriend wrote:You have started with "awareness", and have concluded that being aware of something means sharing an identity with something. The leap is unexplained. I would not agree with this as it stands.

I've not concluded that being aware of something means sharing an identity with it. I've merely described consciousness the way it actually is: there's no such thing as consciousness without an object. It is always awareness of something. The object is a constituent part the awareness.

Now the "leap" to which you refer lies in the ontological status of that object. What status do we assign to it? Are we merely aware of our perception of, say, an apple? Or are we aware of that apple itself? If you claim the latter, then you cannot escape making the same "leap" which you accuse me of making: awareness contains the apple itself as part of awareness. Since consciousness can't be separated from its own object, an identity has been made. But if you claim the former, then you've commited yourself to solipsism, because on that view, all we are aware of would be our subjective perceptions.

I've pointed out the problem. It is paradoxical from either view, mine or yours. But the individualistic view is identical with solipsism, while my view gets us outside our perceptions to the world beyond.

Can you explain, on your view, how we can be aware of the world if we are distinct individuals? How do distinct individuals get beyond their own subjectivity if there is no fundamental intermingling going on?

Some really great posts folks.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what to think.

On the one hand, Malik's paradoxical view is well presented. So well presented that it almost defies refutation, especially given that he's not trying to make it logically seamless, in fact, that he admits it can't be.

As Fist suggests, it's a very elegant view indeed.

Of course, Wayfriends posts are characteristically eloquent as well.

I'm not sure that Malik is trying to argue that individuality doesn't exist. It seems more like he is saying that individuality is not all that there is.

And certainly, I can't deny that humanity seems to share an inbuilt connectivity that does not necessarily have to be an objective quantifiable or measureable state.

Whether or not however that connectivity is naturally inbuilt, or whether it is a product of our environment and social evolution, I'm not sure.

Of course, I would like to point out that nothing you said earlier is a refutation of the possibility of solipsism either.

The fact that ou and I share a language does not mean that it must have been developed through the interaction of millions of people since time began. In fact, IIRC, the whole point of solipsism is that while it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the language came about that way, it's reasonable as a result of the solipsist paradigm...that everything is the way it is, only because we percieve it that way. Just because we think that language was an autonomous development, doesn't mean that it was.

To come to your last post there Malik, I believe we are aware of our perception of the apple. And of everything else.

Our subjective perceptions are all that we are usually aware of, without serious effort to recognise them as such.

That isn't to say that "an apple" doesn't actually exist as an objective reality that exists regardless of our perceptions. I'm fairly confident that it does.

But the objective, measureable reality of an apple is nothing more than a placeholder for our perceptions to incorporate into themselves. The apple is sweet, sour, bitter, emerald or mint depending on your perception. It is all of these things (or none of them) quite independantly of its objective status.

Solipsism is perhaps the epitome of the individualist view. And while thereis mingling of some kind going on (between our perceptions), distinct individuals very rarely do manage to get beyond their subjectivity, or even realise that their subjectivity is only that.

--A

I, too, am a firm believer in perceptions over connections. I can perceive an apple. I have no spiritual link to it because I do. If I did, I would not be so easily fooled by a picture of an apple.

I also am a believer that our relationships with others are merely the same, but more so. Our perceptions, including our perceptions of intention, style, and emotional state, are fully engaged when dealing with anyone. In fact, we are designed in such a way that our brains are rather devoted to this. (To wit, how quickly we can recognize a face, or recognize emotional cues.)

When we interact with anyone, we develop models of them in our own minds. These models are quite complex, and very predictive. The closer you are to someone, the more the model grows, and it can achieve the status of sub-personality.

There's no mystical connection; there is merely congruence between a model and the person modeled.

Sometimes we notice our models, when they don't work. Everyone of us on the Watch has a model of someone else on the Watch that we interact with. Odds are, that model gets a major readjustment when you meet someone face to face. Because our model is stunted, being built only from cues which we can convey over the net. (Anyone have an example they'd like to share?) I'm quite sure I'm nothing like my watch persona; in real life I'm not nearly as handsome.

Anyway, if there is more to me than me, I don't know what it is. I don't buy in that I am part of a larger entity, or that I am a cell in the body called Earth, or anything like that. Maybe I have a spirit that lives on after I die. Maybe I have a soul which existed before my body was born. But it is mine.

The only thing I am sure of is that, if God created us, and He had a reason for doing so, then it has a lot to do with me being me, and not me being anyone else.

Avatar wrote:I'm not sure that Malik is trying to argue that individuality doesn't exist. It seems more like he is saying that individuality is not all that there is.

Yes, exactly. I think we can lose our connections with others and the world all too easily.

What I'm saying is that there is something "miraculous" going on when we know the world and know others. It shouldn't be possible. We only have our perceptions. And they are subjective. And subjectivity seems like the ultimate barrier to anything beyond. And yet, we get beyond somehow. That transcendence is mysterious and apparently impossible. It makes me think that subjectivity was never a barrier to begin with. Maybe the appearance of being IS being. But, if you're going this route, the barrier you must break down is identical to the division of individual/world.

Avatar wrote:Our subjective perceptions are all that we are usually aware of, without serious effort to recognise them as such.

If we don't recognize them as such, then how can they be "all that we're usually aware of," as you say? I'm not aware of these colors and shapes before me. Not usually. Usually, I'm aware of this computer screen, this desk, this keyboard. It takes an effort to switch this awareness to the colors and shapes of the objects. It's an effort similar to an artist's inspection, an attention to visual detail that is unnecessary in routine interaction with the object.

Avatar wrote:That isn't to say that "an apple" doesn't actually exist as an objective reality that exists regardless of our perceptions. I'm fairly confident that it does.

How can you be "fairly confident" that the apple exists? See, that's exactly what I'm getting at. I don't doubt that you are certain of the apple's existence. In fact, I'd call you crazy if you weren't certain of it. But where does that certainty come from? How can it arise through a subjective exerience? If it is perfectly natural for knowledge of the "external" world to filter down through subjective perceptions, then why cling to this notion of "subjective"? Maybe the problem was in our thinking that perceptions were purely subjective to begin with. Maybe there are parts of our perceptions which are capable of touching upon universal features of reality (and that's precisely the issue here: I'm taking this ability as evidence of a deeper connection with reality beyond ourselves, a connection which would be impossible for truly distinct, separate entities).

Avatar wrote: But the objective, measureable reality of an apple is nothing more than a placeholder for our perceptions to incorporate into themselves. The apple is sweet, sour, bitter, emerald or mint depending on your perception. It is all of these things (or none of them) quite independantly of its objective status.

Is the world a "placeholder" for this big thing we keep having perceptions of? According to your view of external objects, this is the case. Yet, I have trouble accepting that this place we live in--reality--is merely a placeholder for a phantom, hypothetical realm. Denying the reality of the world, when that is precisely where we have our being, is equivelant to denying the reality of your being. Why stop at solipsism? As long as you're holding all reality in question, how can you be sure of yourself?

Avatar wrote:And while thereis mingling of some kind going on (between our perceptions), distinct individuals very rarely do manage to get beyond their subjectivity, or even realise that their subjectivity is only that.

I agree that most people don't recognize the degree to which they "color" their perceptions of the world with beliefs and superstitions. Too often, they take their opinions as fact. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with the claim that individuals rarely get beyond their subjectivity. 99% of the time, people spend their waking hours in the world, not caught up in their perceptions. You couldn't hold a job, otherwise. You couldn't navigate the streets, otherwise. Daily life requires activity in this world. That is certainly getting beyond your subjectivity.


Wayfriend, I don't think I have a spiritual connection with anything. I don't believe in a spirit. I'm just pointing out a problem: are we aware of objects external to our perceptions, or not? What is the object of our consciousness? If it is only perceptions, then we are stuck within ourselves. Solipsists. But if we are aware of objects, then our consciousness IS consciousness-of-that-object. And since the object of consciousness cannot be separated from consciousness itself, then there is a linkage going on here which extends beyond mere modeling. I'm not aware of a model of the apple. I'm aware of the apple itself. You can't eat a model. I eat apples all the time.

Malik23 wrote:I don't think I have a spiritual connection with anything... But if we are aware of objects, then our consciousness IS consciousness-of-that-object. And since the object of consciousness cannot be separated from consciousness itself, then there is a linkage going on here which extends beyond mere modeling.

A linkage. Ergo a connection. Not a physical connection. Ergo, a spiritual one. Just wanted to say that to clear up what I was referring to. Perhaps you'd choose another term - "metaphysical linkage"? "extra-conscious referrent"? - but you are clearly postulating that there is one-of-those, and I disagree.

Malik23 wrote:What I'm saying is that there is something "miraculous" going on when we know the world and know others. It shouldn't be possible. We only have our perceptions. And they are subjective. And subjectivity seems like the ultimate barrier to anything beyond. And yet, we get beyond somehow. That transcendence is mysterious and apparently impossible. It makes me think that subjectivity was never a barrier to begin with. Maybe the appearance of being IS being. But, if you're going this route, the barrier you must break down is identical to the division of individual/world.

I don't see it the same way. All parts of the universe interact with other parts. Particles bounce from one to another; each part has a gravitational effect on the others; etc.

Some parts of the universe don't seem to react to some of these interactions. At least not that we, in our limited understanding of things, have yet noticed. For example (AFAIK, but I could be wrong. In which case, please supply another example. ), the asteroids in the asteroid belt don't react to the sun's light. But others clearly do. Chlorophyll reacts to light. Iron reacts to magnetic fields. Parts of our bodies react to some of these interactions.

Some things that do react in ways we can perceive don't seem to notice the reactions. (At least not that we, in our limited understanding of things, have yet noticed.) Does the compass' needle notice that it always points north? But some things do notice these interactions in ways that we can perceive. Humans notice the interactions more than anything else we have yet found.

Are you saying that it is the reactions that should be impossible? Or the awareness? Or something else?

Fist and Faith wrote:Are you saying that it is the reactions that should be impossible? Or the awareness? Or something else?

Hmmm. . . I'm not making myself clear. I think I'm incorrectly assuming similar philosophical foundations for this discussion. Maybe I need to back up.

We don't start out knowing a world. Infants start out not knowing that this great big reality exists. They literally are aware of nothing but their perceptions. Gradually, once they begin to sort out their perceptions, they begin to intuit a world. They recognize their mother's face. They recognize objects relevant to their survival (bottle, for instance). Their own hands. Their own bodies. Gradually, we move out into the world through a greater understanding of it.

But we necessarily move out into the world through our perceptions. In terms of accessing the world, we have nothing else but our perceptions. That's how we know it's there at all. There's just one problem with this: perceptions are subjective, while the world is objective. At least that's how we like to think of it. When pointing out how easily we're often fooled (like with optical illusions), we stress that our perceptions are separate and distinct from reality: subjective. When talking about the world beyond our superstitious prejudices, we stress how it is objective, that is, distinct from our malleable impressions of it.

The problem is that our ideas of this objective, distinct world come from our subjective experiences. How can we justify the "theory" of an objective world when the only evidence we have is subjective? That's like arguing for the existence of pink elephants simply because you've hallucinated a pink elephant. It's a leap of logic that is not only unjustified, but is clearly contradictory. The problem of subjective perceptions--their incompletelness and falliability--is used as a justification for something that is complete and infalliable.

That's the problem. Or at least that's my poor articulation of it. The problem of how we transcend our experiences to reach the objective world beyond us is an old one, a problem I can't do justice with one post.

Didn't one of those famous guys say something about all this? Kant? Hume? I don't know who, but I remember them talking about it in Sophie's World. We don't know what anything's true nature is, we only know how we perceive it. And in The Matrix, Morpheus said:

"What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste, and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

And that's all perfectly true. (Although there's no knowing that a red, rubber ball's true nature is anything other than red, rubber, and spherical.) However, as we all agree, there is an objective reality outside our senses. The problem is that our senses can't perceive its entirety. We can't sense individual gravitons; electromagnetic radiation outside of a certain range; and on and on and on. Even with all the devices we've built to sense what we can't perceive directly, even though we know it's there in the objective sense, we can't know that we've even scratched the surface of what is happening.

But we can perceive objective reality to the degree that our senses allow. None of us expects to survive being decapitated. We have all experienced various injuries that convince us that decapitation is lethal. There have been enough people who, it seems, ceased to live after such an event, whether it happened accidentally or intentionally. At the same time, nobody has ever seen anyone survive it. This is quite different from the hallucinations of pink elephants that some may have had, and not even all of them are convinced that these creatures truly exist.

Another problem with our perceptions, a more truly subjective problem than merely not being able to perceive everything, is that we are not all capable of perceiving to the same degree. Some are color-blind, some can't see at all. Some can't taste certain things, some can't curl their tongue, etc. Some are simply unable to view whatever is objectively out there as well as others are.

And then there's our imperfect memory. I'm amazed when I learn that I have been mis-remembering something that I would have bet serious money I remembered accurately. No, it wasn't X who gave me that toy when I was a kid, it was Y.

In what ways would you say subjectivity is not just our inefficiencies or imperfections? I'd say preferences are truly subjective, but I don't know how the fact that I can't freakin' stand the taste of beets says anything about beets in any objective sense. (Maybe the fact that we have preferences is the key to my understanding your thoughts?)

Malik23 wrote:

Avatar wrote:Our subjective perceptions are all that we are usually aware of, without serious effort to recognise them as such.

If we don't recognize them as such, then how can they be "all that we're usually aware of," as you say?

We percieve our perceptions as reality. What we're not aware of is that the "reality" and our perception thereof are often different things.

Malik23 wrote:

Avatar wrote:That isn't to say that "an apple" doesn't actually exist as an objective reality that exists regardless of our perceptions. I'm fairly confident that it does.

How can you be "fairly confident" that the apple exists? See, that's exactly what I'm getting at. I don't doubt that you are certain of the apple's existence. In fact, I'd call you crazy if you weren't certain of it. But where does that certainty come from?

Positive reinforcement. The fact that, when you percieve an apple, you can reach out and feel something that corresponds to your perception.

Malik23 wrote:If it is perfectly natural for knowledge of the "external" world to filter down through subjective perceptions, then why cling to this notion of "subjective"?

Because no two perceptions are ever identical in every way. Therefore perception can only be subjective. If perception was objective, then everybody would percieve the apple the same way. It would taste equally good, be equally green, etc. etc.

Malik23 wrote:Maybe the problem was in our thinking that perceptions were purely subjective to begin with. Maybe there are parts of our perceptions which are capable of touching upon universal features of reality (and that's precisely the issue here: I'm taking this ability as evidence of a deeper connection with reality beyond ourselves, a connection which would be impossible for truly distinct, separate entities).

See, I agree that our perceptions touch upon objective reality. It can't be otherwise. The objective world is the foundation of our perception. But to me this doesn't imply a connection of some sort. Or at least, not a "mystical" one.

Why would distinct seperate entities be unable to percieve something?

Malik23 wrote:

Avatar wrote: But the objective, measureable reality of an apple is nothing more than a placeholder for our perceptions to incorporate into themselves. The apple is sweet, sour, bitter, emerald or mint depending on your perception. It is all of these things (or none of them) quite independantly of its objective status.

Is the world a "placeholder" for this big thing we keep having perceptions of? According to your view of external objects, this is the case. Yet, I have trouble accepting that this place we live in--reality--is merely a placeholder for a phantom, hypothetical realm. Denying the reality of the world, when that is precisely where we have our being, is equivelant to denying the reality of your being. Why stop at solipsism? As long as you're holding all reality in question, how can you be sure of yourself?

This is indeed the case. In fact, I doubt I could have put it better myself. "Reality" is the placeholder for a phanton, hallucinogenic dream that we're all having. That dream is the subjective reality. It's the reality in which god expects his believers to kill people, the reality in which the poor are all fools, in which criminals are all evil, the reality in which female circumscision is the right thing to do, in which thieves should have their hands cut off, and in which Elephants are walls, snakes, tree-trunks spears, fans or ropes, depending on which part the blind man stumbles against.

It's all real, to the perceiver at least.

Malik23 wrote:

Avatar wrote:And while thereis mingling of some kind going on (between our perceptions), distinct individuals very rarely do manage to get beyond their subjectivity, or even realise that their subjectivity is only that.

I agree that most people don't recognize the degree to which they "color" their perceptions of the world with beliefs and superstitions. Too often, they take their opinions as fact. However, I disagree wholeheartedly with the claim that individuals rarely get beyond their subjectivity. 99% of the time, people spend their waking hours in the world, not caught up in their perceptions. You couldn't hold a job, otherwise. You couldn't navigate the streets, otherwise. Daily life requires activity in this world. That is certainly getting beyond your subjectivity.

I disagree. People's subjectivity permeates their every action and reaction. Of course you can hold a job even in the throes of subjectivity...you may believe your boss is an idiot, when he's actually quite nice. But to you, (therefore affecting your actions and thoughts regarding him, he is an idiot.

Subjectivity doesn't replae the "real" with the "imaginary," it's more like a filter which subtly affects everything most people do, to some greater or lesser degree.

Malik23 wrote:...But if we are aware of objects, then our consciousness IS consciousness-of-that-object. And since the object of consciousness cannot be separated from consciousness itself, then there is a linkage going on here which extends beyond mere modeling. I'm not aware of a model of the apple. I'm aware of the apple itself. You can't eat a model. I eat apples all the time.

You eat the apple, but the apple you eat isn't the sae as the apple I eat. The underlying placeholder isn't what you eat...you do eat the model...not physically, but psychologically. A sour apple tastes bad to you and good to me. You eat a bad apple, but I eat a good one, and they are the same apple.

--A

ow can we justify the "theory" of an objective world when the only evidence we have is subjective? That's like arguing for the existence of pink elephants simply because you've hallucinated a pink elephant. It's a leap of logic that is not only unjustified, but is clearly contradictory. The problem of subjective perceptions--their incompletelness and falliability--is used as a justification for something that is complete and infalliable.

I would imagine that we don't justify it. This is the Hume question in another form, isn't it? If all we have are either ideas from experience (subjective) or ideas by definition (a bachelor is an unmarried man, 2+2=4, and other things that are just stating 1=1) how could we ever increase the amount that we 'know' with certainty?

I guess we don't. I mean, that's how I feel about it. You can only approach certainty about anything, through repitition or deduction. If we could only take action when we were certain about something we wouldn't get anything done. In practice, humanity does the best it can with limited information at all times.

JemCheeta, so do you think that we don't actually access the outer world? Are you comfortable with Hume's conclusions? Are you, too, a skeptic? You sound more like a pragmatist.

I use Hume to show how what we take for granted (accessing the world and each other) should technically be impossible. However, I beyond Hume's conclusions to point out that even if it's "impossible," we still do it nonetheless.

I'm pretty sure that we should try and avoid certainty. Certainty opens the door to much more...dangerous...practices. Because if only you are right, why then, everybody else must be wrong.

--A