An Objective View

look u r doing it again but this time more clearly, as i was saying u cant think bc u keep on pointing relations of what is barely some limited realities of smthg else
the way is to get from u all bc where u stand is really alone, so it is the way to get the thinking right out of true objective facts and free relations

u cant skip absolute facts as the base of any and all even freedom and abstractions results
the base is always more then its result freedom since each result abstraction need all bases much more since not there
stop reacting to my words as if u must prove being intelligent too
any expression is intelligent bc always only truth realize any, subjects intelligence is by definition never objective, stop meaning to point objects in order to get to urself some subjective points

no missy subjects and objects are not abstract, u prove the extent of being wrong urself by claiming that

that is why subjects are always one bc it is the most concrete thing known fully
and that is how objects are exclusively out of absolute full reality identification geographically existing clearly from any sight, it is not an abstract thingy

and for ur master nietzche, i would guess that he said this from meaning to take advantage of superiority he saw being the essence always existing more then anything else, which logically justify the weakness of absolutes that he meant to abuse

u cant get away of truth if u mean smthg real or fact or always, as i said the more u get back to nothing the more u cant mean but what basically work alone just fine

Do you refer to your family members as relatives?

I think you cut a lot out of your reasoning. I have seen a documentary on a man who couldn't recognize faces. Something that everyone takes for granted but he was in an accident and damaged a part of his brain that helped process facial recognition.

I've seen another documentary on another man who couldn't see the right half of any circular objects. Looking at a round clock, he couldn't see the right half of it. His brain simply could not process anything that was on the right side of a round object. Seems almost unbelievable how that could possibly work.

So as you say the brain plays a large roll in sensory cognition but at the same time you need the sensory data or else you have nothing. Just like when you turn the lights out and are in a room completely dark, you can't make out objects even though they are there.

"Data" are always relative to a decision procedure or specified goal. They cannot be separated from the observer systems which utilize them. The "fact" that damaged systems fail to process their data is a tautology.

My point is, you can't have the sense without the sense data. They are two separate but distinct things. It's the organs that allow that data to reach the brain for processing. How that data gets processed is up to the brain but there is consistency. If you remove the sense data the organ will not pick up any data and thus the brain will have no data to process.

If you are saying that "observer" and "observed" are co-existent and co-extensive, like two sides of the same coin, then I agree with you. If on the other hand you think "sense data" have an independent existence, or have meaning beyond our models of perceptual mechanisms then I think you are wrong. In this respect you might note that some biologists like Varela have argued that those models cannot be limited to physiology and need to be extended in humans at least to include social structures (see for example his account of color perception). This obviously involves reconsideration of "observer boundaries" beyond the body of individual.

on the contrary to me family members are ennemies bc truth is freedom so there it is much more difficult to mean itself then with else

while ur question show the liar u r, i didnt use the word relative in any mean, u r creating a sentence to pretend a meaning by urself while by using my post claiming it justifying ur mean, evil ways that never use but others realisations to mean realizing smthg themselves

relative is to freedom superiority which by definition then cant b but relative one freedom itself fact alone going always up
which prove how absolute is truth when relative seem superior to what is absolutely right which is impossible in fact since absolutely objective is only what truth realize as its most superior value

too complicate for u to show u what that mean, but ur point is **** that mean urself **** life

There is no need to be hostile. I didn't create the words subjects or relations. It is not my invention that family members are referred to as relatives. This is something that doesn't require a survey for validation. It doesn't matter what sense data you have. There is no decision procedure or specified goal involved. It also doesn't matter who the observer is or what is being observed. You guys are killing me. Subjects and relations theory isn't in any of the religious texts and it isn't in atheistic literature either. They don't tell you this in psychology and they don't talk about it in philosophy. May I remind you all that we are at war over other ideas that claim to be absolute truths, objective views. Who is the one that is in the wrong here?

u, since obviously u cant say a sentence in quality of relativity, and that is why u run for no reason to abuse any situation where u can impose that relative is about family memberships, **** u shitty

If you are meaning the natural rules that apply to data in our Universe also apply to people you are not saying anything new...if you are saying something else then I dont have a clue on what you are saying, since subjects are objective existencial facts in themselves no matter what language or meaning we use to describe them...

Yes that is likely !

No they are not ! The boundary of "the subject" is functionally defined according to the level of system under consideration. In the literature on "embodied cognition" the brain (+sense organs) is empirically shown to be insufficient in itself to account for what we call "perception".

Yes, the "subject" is not necessarily an existential fact, but you must agree that subjective "events" are objective "facts", i.e., they are real.

u obviously have no idea of what u r meaning, why dont u hang out in other forums where ur words would point what u r doing
objective fact moron cant b a subject reality, what perceive object as a fact is the most true in meaning else to itself, which is the realisation of one out of all else, subjects whatever real they are cant b but relative quality while object by definition of its fact is always exclusively absolutely real

Fil said that "subjects" are existential facts, not "the subject."

Obviously, a particular subject is subjective, it is functionally defined according to the level of system under consideration as you say. What Fil meant was, I believe, is that all subjects, or the meaning of subject in general, is an objective existential fact.

No. Without going into detail I would refer you to Derrida's attack on the "metaphysics of presence". What we call "objectivity" is a contextual construction of the dynamics of communication. Objects have no context independent status. ("Fact" from facere-to construct)

What attack can ever go against the objectivity of presence? A nothingness attack...oh dear...subjective experiences are themselves objective facts...you can shout all you want but you cant change that...in fact the more you shout the more you prove my point...

Either relational functions are real functions, objective processes of relation, or there is no relation but solipsism's and word salads...subjectivity without objectivity it is meaningless and devoid of any rational sense so just try and say something substantially credible for a change...

Correct....but as Derrida pointed out, to privilege one of them (at the expense of the other) in "science" say, is to be mesmerised by the noun aspect of "being" and ignore the verb. In other words "objects" are brought forth by communicating correspondents for mutual purposes. From that point of view "objectivity" equates to "co-subjectivity". The paradigmatic mechanisms for such agreement are exemplified by the gestalt concept of agreed figure-ground, with the proviso that such agreement may be transient.

Again bottom line you end up just meaning different agents have different functional relations with the world based on their internal differences which is natural once what we observe is the functional end of those relations, an objective grounded fact itself...in turn you cannot disprove that if a similar nature were in place a similar relation would take place from agent to agent...so I don't see any peril to the acceptance of an objective reality capable of producing complex subjective processes...my point was never beyond this simple assertion Fresco !...

no a subject by definition is only itself, so it cant b objective bc even self freedom is never objective about itself since alone the part that truth realize is much more present fact

ur belief is based on ur will to b one life
a will by definition is what cant b ever existing, wanting smthg is already proving that u dont have it inherently so can never b in touch with

i say, one do not exist u say nothing exist bc one is all there is

i repeat what i say again, no one do not exist and ever will, so no subjects, only objects exist and freedom out of it as a plus and freedom is never a will, freedom is the most obvious existing fact that prove the nonexistence of one by the least existence being beyond one, freedom fact