> Not knowing what subjective experience is means there's literally no objective explanation for anything. Everything you experience - including all of science

> 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?