Morality doesn't make sense.

[Kaz1983]

.
You're maybe confusing possibly being mistaken with subjectivity, but those are two different things.

Going by your definition you provided, it seems that even though I'm talking about the individual, I am not talking about subjectivity but I'm not going by your definition but my own (which many dictionary use alongside your definition) "our senses can always fail us" would make more sense I suppose. From the definition you provided, which is the stock standard definition everybody in philosophy goes by. That said, the definition of subjectivity the I'm going by is "the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world" - our senses being mistaken by the mind is compatible with this definition of subjectivity, so I suppose if people are going by your definition, I get why they think I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm not using your definition.. that's the issue. I can't see that everybody here thinks I'm a fruit loop or something but are not the only person to think this way, here is a link; https://medium.com/@duncanr/science-is- ... f297cc85ab

[Kaz1983]

Like @Red said, your 'mind-dependent' expression is really vague and can have different meanings.
Does it mean if you see the apple being red, it might actually be not red because the apple being red is dependent on your mind?
Does it mean if you see the apple red, you could be wrong because you might be daltonic?

I'll just assume that you're sane, and it's the second option.

Colour exists as light waves independent of our mind, so the answer is yes but if you classify what is the day-to-day colour we see - that is deffo mind independent but I'm guessing your pointing at lightwaves being objectively true.

[Kaz1983]

.

Nahhh what I'm saying is that all knowledge derives from sense experience and therefore is mind-dependent.

Are you trying to advocate for solipsism? What do you mean by 'mind-dependent?' You have to define these things, because people can interpret these things differently.

No I'm not advocating for solipsism, what I'm saying is that all knowledge comes from the existence of something with a mind - in this case a human being, there just happens to be 7 million plus minds atm... anyways what I mean by mind-dependent, is that there needs to be an observer to observe something and seeing as tho science is based on observing experiments and coming to conclusions based on those experiments, science is by definition mind-dependent.. also just because there is a widely held consensus reached by thousands plus scientists, even tho they have all agreed with each other, that does not make it objective at all... without the scientist, science as we know it would not exist. Btw; when I say "subjectivity” what I mean is, "the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world"

[Lay Vegan]

.
You're maybe confusing possibly being mistaken with subjectivity, but those are two different things.

Going by your definition you provided, it seems that even though I'm talking about the individual, I am not talking about subjectivity but I'm not going by your definition but my own (which many dictionary use alongside your definition) "our senses can always fail us" would make more sense I suppose. From the definition you provided, which is the stock standard definition everybody in philosophy goes by. That said, the definition of subjectivity the I'm going by is "the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world" - our senses being mistaken by the mind is compatible with this definition of subjectivity, so I suppose if people are going by your definition, I get why they think I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm not using your definition.. that's the issue. I can't see that everybody here thinks I'm a fruit loop or something but are not the only person to think this way, here is a link; https://medium.com/@duncanr/science-is- ... f297cc85ab

Your definition of "subjectivity" is not standard and is philosophically uninteresting. Normally anti-objectivists will deny moral objectivism for reason of "mind dependence" while happily accepting scientific objectivism, despite the fact that science too relies on human observation and interpretation of data (all requiring some level of mind). It's odd to find someone like you who denies objectivity in both science and morality because of "mind dependence."

My only objection is that your definition is simply too useless to do anything with. It isn't possible to experience reality outside of a brain, so using that as some strange standard to verify anything is nonsensical. Observation without a mind is impossible without having some level of mind to do the observation. Very few academic philosophers would ever take any of your posts seriously enough to even engage with.

If you'd like to engage with a more useful definition of subjective/objective, please read this article. wiki/index.php/Objective-subjective_dis ... dependence Other than that, @thebestofenergy has done really good job explaining to you how science is systematically designed to reduce and eliminate human error/bias.

[thebestofenergy]

You had made a post saying how you in fact confused the possibility of being mistaken with subjectivity. What made you change your mind and delete it?

the definition of subjectivity the I'm going by is "the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world" - our senses being mistaken by the mind is compatible with this definition of subjectivity, so I suppose if people are going by your definition, I get why they think I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm not using your definition.. that's the issue. I can't see that everybody here thinks I'm a fruit loop or something but are not the only person to think this way, here is a link; https://medium.com/@duncanr/science-is- ... f297cc85ab

Try to read what you just wrote. Do you think what you're saying is sound?

The notion that objectively verifiable qualities are dependent on your mind for their existence and truth is absurd.

If you die, the apple with still be red.
The apple being red isn't dependent on your mind by any stretch of imagination.

If you disappear, the sun will still rise, and the medication will still be very likely to work.

What do you think would happen if you were to:

1. put yourself in a coma
2. set a recording for the sun rising
3. be brought back from the coma a few days later, and observe the recording with others

Do you think the sun would suddenly not exist in the recording, because your mind wasn't present at the time? Or that the sun was seen as a blue triangle by others?
Do you think the medication would suddenly not work if people stopped believing it did?

The notion that the evidence used by science exists only in your mind is ridiculous.

Your mind doesn't dictate reality. Reality can be understood objectively.

The link you gave me does exactly the same that you do: science's axiom about reality possibly being mistaken -> subjectivity
Same with its claim about you knowing what you actually are: just because you might not know what you actually are, doesn't mean it can't be fully understood eventually, and it doesn't mean it's a subjective matter (existing only in your mind). It's an objective one. The truth is there no matter if you understand it or not.
It's a non-sequitur. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi ... n-Sequitur

Colour exists as light waves independent of our mind, so the answer is yes but if you classify what is the day-to-day colour we see - that is deffo mind independent but I'm guessing your pointing at lightwaves being objectively true.

So now you're again going back to the possibility of being mistaken.

Is the apple being red only something that exists in your mind and if your mind is present, therefore subjective?
Or could you be mistaken about the apple's color because of lighting of the environment, but the actual color of the apple still being objective?

Which is it?

I'm not claiming that science is subjective, like how looking at an apple and seeing the colour red is subjective haha.

Look at what you said a few posts back.

Then now you say:

the definition of subjectivity the I'm going by is "the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world"

You can see how it looks like you're swaying between the possibility of being mistaken, and then things only existing in the mind, and repeat.

It's important to understand the concept that the truth is there whether you can understand it/know it or not.

If you throw a coin, and you don't look at the result, do you think it's a subjective result, one that exists only in your mind? No, you simply haven't looked at it, but the result is there and is objective - you just have to look at it to know.
If you then think that maybe it's a visual distortion through someone brain controlling you, do you then think the result is subjective? No, you're simply not able to see the result properly.
But no matter what, if it lands on heads, tails, or stays straight up, or is even just floating in a vacuum, the result is an objective truth that we may or may not understand and know.

[Kaz1983]

Try to read what you just wrote. Do you think what you're saying is sound?

The notion that objectively verifiable qualities are dependent on your mind for their existence and truth is absurd.

If you die, the apple with still be red.
The apple being red isn't dependent on your mind by any stretch of imagination.

If you disappear, the sun will still rise, and the medication will still be very likely to work.

Plenty of philosophers are idealists and they hold a similar position. I'm not claim that's the world as we know it wouldn't exist if there were no mods to experience it but that all knowledge of the external world comes from sensory experience. That there would be no knowledge if there is nobody to experience the world but without sensory experience of the external world, knowledge may still exist but it would not be attainable - therefore, all knowledge known by man is derived from sensory experience.

[thebestofenergy]

Try to read what you just wrote. Do you think what you're saying is sound?

The notion that objectively verifiable qualities are dependent on your mind for their existence and truth is absurd.

If you die, the apple with still be red.
The apple being red isn't dependent on your mind by any stretch of imagination.

If you disappear, the sun will still rise, and the medication will still be very likely to work.

Plenty of philosophers are idealists and they hold a similar position.

So? What's your point?

Plenty of philosophers think that stealing is dogmatically wrong, and plenty of professors believe the Earth is flat.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... -Authority

I'm not claim that's the world as we know it wouldn't exist if there were no mods to experience it

I guess you mean 'minds', not mods.

So, then, what exactly are you claiming?
Because by applying the definition of subjectivity that you're using to evidence, facts, and data, that's exactly be the conclusion that follows.

If X exists only in your mind, then -> if your mind disappears, X doesn't exist.

but that all knowledge of the external world comes from sensory experience.

So? What does that lead to?
What's possible is that your sensory experience might be mistaken - something that can be mitigated enormously with instruments to determine values of things, and different people's sensory experiences.
That doesn't have anything to do with subjectivity.

That there would be no knowledge if there is nobody to experience the world but without sensory experience of the external world, knowledge may still exist but it would not be attainable

Let's say it's not attainable. How does that counter what I'm saying?

I said that the objective truth is there no matter if we have knowledge of what it is.
You say knowledge might not be obtainable.

That doesn't say anything about the objectivity of the truth being there or not - I already addressed it.

If there's nobody to experience the wind blowing on their skin, or to see leaves flying in the wind, the wind would still be there, blowing.
So would the rising sun. So would the red apple. So would the medication still be very likely to work on humans' migraines - there just wouldn't be any humans left.

- therefore, all knowledge known by man is derived from sensory experience.

So, again, the knowledge can be wrong because you can be mistaken - albeit an astronomically low chance of being wrong when it comes to scientific consensus.
So it goes back to the possibility of being mistaken, and not subjectivity.
Nothing that you claimed here would lead to evidence being subjective and only existing in your mind.

[Kaz1983]

I know it is appealing to authority, I'm not as stupid as you think. That said, plenty of philosophers that's a held in high regard for people studying philosophy for example, stated that "all knowledge is derived purely from sensory experience" Kant was an idealist and he believed something along the same lines as myself. So don't think that I am some idiot online, thinking something absurd.. as I said lots of others question materialism too. You seem to not like me questioning materialism, or to put it into your words lol "me doing the crap job trying to question materialism" .. look I'm not trying to win an argument by appealing to authority figures, just trying to explain my position - I'm sure they do a better job than I do... I admit that you're right that would be a logical fallacy, - see all I'm doing is pointing out that some authority figures held a similar position to myself.. but I'm sure others didn't take kindly to it like yourself as well - so it works both ways

[thebestofenergy]

I know it is appealing to authority, even though you think I'm stupid I'm really not as stupid as you think.

I never said you're stupid, that's a conclusion you're drawing by yourself.
However, an appeal to authority fallacy is a stupid thing to do. And below, you do it again.

That said, plenty of philosophers that's a held in high regard for people studying philosophy at university, all knowledge may be derived purely from sensory experience.

And again, how is that saying anything about subjectivity?

You're not answering my questions. You're completely ignoring what I'm saying, I've addressed this more times than I can count. Go back and read my post.
Knowledge only being derivable from X subject through sensory experience =/= X subject being subjective.

So don't they play me that I am some idiot online to think something absurd, as I said lots of others question materialism too.

You're proving yourself to be one. You keep repeating yourself after I address what you say. You're going in circles.

You're proving yourself to be one because you're saying that knowledge maybe being able to be gained only through sensory experience would mean subjectivity on the matter, after I explained you more than once how the latter doesn't follow from the former, and that it's a non-sequitur.
Materialism also has nothing to do with this. I don't know what you're talking about.

You seem to not like me questioning materialism, or to put it into your words "me doing the crap job trying to question materialism" ..

What are you talking about. Have you lost the plot, or is your phone acting up again?
I didn't even mention materialism.

Maybe you ought to stop being lazy and actually write your responses properly, and take the time to read and address what I said/asked - clearly the way you're doing it now doesn't work.

look I'm not trying to win an argument by appealing to authority figures, you're right that would be a logical fallacy

You literally JUST said that you know what you did is an appeal to authority fallacy.
'Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.'

The fact that you keep going in circles, that you say sentences that don't make sense like me saying something about materialism, and you contradicting yourself multiple times. It begs one question. Are you trolling?

- nahh all I'm doing is pointing out that some authority figures held a similar position to myself

Which means nothing. You presented no evidence to support your claims. And you don't even address my questions - which is disrespectful and annoying.

[Kaz1983]

Ok I'm gonna re-read what everybody said, think about it and get back to you.