4 ms·

This is exactly Chomsky’s point. Try to get through life considering the color of the traffic light you’re approaching as a subjective rather than objective fac

This is exactly Chomsky’s point. Try to get through life considering the color of the traffic light you’re approaching as a subjective rather than objective fact. To pick an example closer to the morality case: Hunger could equally be called a subjective phenomenon. Aliens may not experience anything like hunger. A rare genetic condition might produce a human who experiences escalating hunger as an escalating degree of pleasure. But as humans making our way through the real world, we are forced by physical and anatomical reality to see the causes and consequences of human hunger as objective truths.

roenxi 3y ago
> ... Try to get through life considering the color of the traffic light you’re approaching as a subjective rather than objective fact. ... You didn't consider what I wrote - colourblind people get through life without considering the colour of traffic lights at all. They have to. They are colour blind. The colour of a traffic light as a practical matter is a subjective fact. In fact, the practical colour of a traffic light is more subjective than the philosophical take because at least philosophers can be convinced with a wavelength argument.
ajuc 3y ago
Hunger is subjective. Starvation isn't.
- chromoblob 3y ago
  Hunger is pretty objective if your body isn't malfunctioning (and it never is logically, "malfunctioning" body isn't yours). If your body works correctly, you are not free to choose whether to consider yourself hungry, and this is what I understand as objectivity.
  - ajuc 3y ago
    What I consider hunger someone else can consider the norm or vice versa. If you define something that depends on the person as objective - then subjective loses meaning.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - chromoblob 3y ago
      I improved my definition of feelings so that they can easily be objective. I define hunger as the ideal signal that corresponds exactly to the extent of starvation. 'Ideal signal' is almost like sensation or feeling, except it may not be always or in full precision accessible by consciousness. It is a physical signal, or a function from the physical state. Extent of starvation seems objective (after fixing its definition), and so hunger seems objective too (correspondence is exact). By this definition, if you are starved, but don't notice a feeling of hunger, it's that, you still are hungry, just don't notice it. > What I consider hunger someone else can consider the norm or vice versa. How can that be? Do you mean definition, or something else? What do you consider hunger?
      - ajuc 3y ago
        > I define hunger as the ideal signal that corresponds exactly to the extent of starvation. If you redefine words how you please you can prove anything. What's the point tho? > What do you consider hunger? The feeling I sometimes get that I should eat something. It's VERY subjective (for example when I'm fasting I can go a few days without it, but when I'm not - I get it just cause I'm bored and haven't eaten a breakfast).

roenxi 3y ago

> ... Try to get through life considering the color of the traffic light you’re approaching as a subjective rather than objective fact. ... You didn't consider what I wrote - colourblind people get through life without considering the colour of traffic lights at all. They have to. They are colour blind. The colour of a traffic light as a practical matter is a subjective fact. In fact, the practical colour of a traffic light is more subjective than the philosophical take because at least philosophers can be convinced with a wavelength argument.

ajuc 3y ago

Hunger is subjective. Starvation isn't.

chromoblob 3y ago
Hunger is pretty objective if your body isn't malfunctioning (and it never is logically, "malfunctioning" body isn't yours). If your body works correctly, you are not free to choose whether to consider yourself hungry, and this is what I understand as objectivity.
- ajuc 3y ago
  What I consider hunger someone else can consider the norm or vice versa. If you define something that depends on the person as objective - then subjective loses meaning.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chromoblob 3y ago
    I improved my definition of feelings so that they can easily be objective. I define hunger as the ideal signal that corresponds exactly to the extent of starvation. 'Ideal signal' is almost like sensation or feeling, except it may not be always or in full precision accessible by consciousness. It is a physical signal, or a function from the physical state. Extent of starvation seems objective (after fixing its definition), and so hunger seems objective too (correspondence is exact). By this definition, if you are starved, but don't notice a feeling of hunger, it's that, you still are hungry, just don't notice it. > What I consider hunger someone else can consider the norm or vice versa. How can that be? Do you mean definition, or something else? What do you consider hunger?
    - ajuc 3y ago
      > I define hunger as the ideal signal that corresponds exactly to the extent of starvation. If you redefine words how you please you can prove anything. What's the point tho? > What do you consider hunger? The feeling I sometimes get that I should eat something. It's VERY subjective (for example when I'm fasting I can go a few days without it, but when I'm not - I get it just cause I'm bored and haven't eaten a breakfast).