tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post8542334474768678841..comments2024-01-21T14:29:38.613-08:00Comments on Dangerous Idea 2: Reply to an old response from Doctor LogicVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-8356358402826728502007-07-30T15:14:00.000-07:002007-07-30T15:14:00.000-07:00Victor,Thank you for taking time to answer this.In...Victor,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for taking time to answer this.<BR/><BR/>In your response, you say:<BR/><BR/><I>The problem is that if reality is ultimately physical, then in the last analysis nothing is really subjective.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is begging the question. I am using subjective and objective from a systems perspective. There is a system that is me, a system that is the subject under study, and a system that contains us both. A property of a subject is said to be <I>objective</I> when I obtain appropriately-controlled evidence of those properties (i.e., when my perception of the properties is not just a peculiarity of me, the observer). At the same time, the overall system containing us both can still be objective.<BR/><BR/>These definitions of objective and subjective hold whether one is a physicalist or dualist. If I am a dualist, I can still isolate what is me versus what is in the external world by using scientific methods. If I am a physicalist, I can do the same.<BR/><BR/>So your claim that "if everything is physical there is nothing subjective" doesn't hold up. That claim confuses the subjective with the non-physical, which is begging the question for dualism. It is your belief that the subjective is non-physical, but this is not necessary to the objective/subjective distinction. Whether the subjective is non-physical is the question we are debating.<BR/><BR/>You also say:<BR/><BR/><I>The subjective is expunged from orthodox physical descriptions, and there is no entailment from physical states to subjective states.</I><BR/><BR/>Even dualists believe that the subjective becomes objective when the entire system is under study. For example, it may be an objective fact that Victor likes opera, while at the same time admitting that the "Victor-appeal" of opera is a subjective property of opera.<BR/><BR/>Now, much of the subjectivity in our perceptions happens to be mental. Your like or dislike of opera is probably not genetic or due to your diet. However, it is almost certainly due to your personal history, and your taste is something that may not be shared by other observers (and certainly isn't part of the opera itself). This does not mean that we are justified in identifying all things subjective with all things mental. <BR/><BR/>For example, the allergenic nature of peanuts is subjective without being mental. If a person is allergic to peanuts, we may know this fact about that person objectively. This doesn't mean that the observed allergic interaction is in the peanut alone. It means the allergy is in the interaction of the peanut with the allergic person, and that makes the allergic nature of the peanut subjective.<BR/><BR/>So your quote about the subjective being expunged from physical descriptions is misleading. A physical explanation of a subjective reaction of a particular observer is objective. This is a bit confusing, so I'll elaborate. :)<BR/><BR/>Say we have an object (e.g., a peanut), and a subject (an unnamed human observer). The human observer's allergy to the peanut is subjective with respect to the peanut. This is because, without knowing who the observer is, we cannot predict an allergic reaction. <BR/><BR/>However, if we broaden our definition of the object to include a particular taster (i.e., object is now the peanut and Bob), then we can determine objectively what the reaction will be. The allergenic nature of the Bob-peanut interaction will be objective. No matter who observes the interaction (you, me, Dr. Smith, etc.), we will all confirm Bob's allergy.<BR/><BR/>So, science can expunge the subjective from a subject, but that doesn't mean there's nothing subjective taking place within the boundaries of the subject.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.com