3 ms·

I'm not a philosopher, but I don't understand why we need an explanation for subjective experience, how could we exist without it? If someone were to shove thei

I'm not a philosopher, but I don't understand why we need an explanation for subjective experience, how could we exist without it? If someone were to shove their hand into an open flame, but they also happened to lack the subjective experience of pain, it's conceivable they might not immediately recoil from the flame. This type of reaction doesn't seem compatible with our evolutionary history, the subjective experience of pain is unbearable because if it wasn't it wouldn't function as an efficient guide for avoiding damage to the body. All other subjective experiences seem to follow from the same logic.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Because there is nothing but subjective experience. Not knowing what subjective experience is means there's literally no objective explanation for anything. Everything you experience - including all of science and math - is filtered through subjective processes. If you think this is wrong, try to prove that math exists in a self-consistent form without any subjectivity at all. You won't be able to. If you read Hilbert's original notes on his Project, he was using words like "intuitive" to describe certain fundamental elements in math. This bothered him, but the problem turned out to be more complex than he expected. Philosophers have a special word - 'intersubjective' - to describe how these experiences work. Intersubjective experiences are collectively consistent and reliable but are not provably independent and objective. The best you'll get from them is consistency and predictability. It's easy to confuse this with objectivity, but as members of the human species we can only know our own experiences, and we don't know anything at all about what other possible experiences are available. So it would be naive - and a denial of the Copernican Principle - to assume that human intersubjectivity is somehow definitive and ultimate.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > Not knowing what subjective experience is means there's literally no objective explanation for anything. Everything you experience - including all of science and math - is filtered through subjective processes. I'm not following the logic here, unless you're suggesting some type of solipsism. Yes, my experience that 2+2=4 is technically subjective, but I'm not sure what it would even mean to "objectively" understand this to be true, I can't understand how it would have any consequences for any aspect of reality as we understand it. > Intersubjective experiences are collectively consistent and reliable but are not provably independent and objective. The best you'll get from them is consistency and predictability. Thanks for this term, TIL. I suppose my question is, what value does objectivity have over intersubjectitivy? I doesn't sound like this type of objectivity is even a coherent concept because it seems like a definitional contradiction to have any experience of objective reality. If something is objective but fundamentally unknowable, it might as well not exist, right?

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Because there is nothing but subjective experience. Not knowing what subjective experience is means there's literally no objective explanation for anything. Everything you experience - including all of science and math - is filtered through subjective processes. If you think this is wrong, try to prove that math exists in a self-consistent form without any subjectivity at all. You won't be able to. If you read Hilbert's original notes on his Project, he was using words like "intuitive" to describe certain fundamental elements in math. This bothered him, but the problem turned out to be more complex than he expected. Philosophers have a special word - 'intersubjective' - to describe how these experiences work. Intersubjective experiences are collectively consistent and reliable but are not provably independent and objective. The best you'll get from them is consistency and predictability. It's easy to confuse this with objectivity, but as members of the human species we can only know our own experiences, and we don't know anything at all about what other possible experiences are available. So it would be naive - and a denial of the Copernican Principle - to assume that human intersubjectivity is somehow definitive and ultimate.

root_axis 6y ago
> Not knowing what subjective experience is means there's literally no objective explanation for anything. Everything you experience - including all of science and math - is filtered through subjective processes. I'm not following the logic here, unless you're suggesting some type of solipsism. Yes, my experience that 2+2=4 is technically subjective, but I'm not sure what it would even mean to "objectively" understand this to be true, I can't understand how it would have any consequences for any aspect of reality as we understand it. > Intersubjective experiences are collectively consistent and reliable but are not provably independent and objective. The best you'll get from them is consistency and predictability. Thanks for this term, TIL. I suppose my question is, what value does objectivity have over intersubjectitivy? I doesn't sound like this type of objectivity is even a coherent concept because it seems like a definitional contradiction to have any experience of objective reality. If something is objective but fundamentally unknowable, it might as well not exist, right?