@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's about "natural biological responses." The body responds naturally to outside stimuli which is 'involuntary.' The subject doesn't think about their response; it just happens. When anyone taps a person's knee with an object, and taps it on the right area, it will react in a natural-similar way, unless the individual has some injury or other ailments that may affect natural response.
i understand what you're writing here, but i disagree with it. "Individual subjectivism" constantly deals with and adapts to "natural biological responses". In my opinion, "subjectivism", itself, is an involuntary, biological response that helps the individual regulate other involuntary, biological responses. Without an active body that includes a brain, there is no subject, and many "involuntary" processes go into making a subjective consciousness. The regulation of organs, sub-conscious memories, the affects of emotional trauma, primitive instincts, and reflexes are all incorporated, along with situational awareness, in "individual subjectivism". i don't think that deliberation is the sole manifestation of the subject.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Razzleg wrote:Belief, on the other hand, seems to perform differently. It does not predict a value, so much as it represents it -- historically speaking, one can observe persons holding the same values while changing beliefs [and belief systems], much as one can observe someone learning a new language to express themselves.
In these kinds of discussions, the word "belief" is almost always a guess wearing a disguise.
People make guesses about the "unknown" of REALITY...and call them "beliefs" in order to give them stature they could not possibly possess if identified as the "guesses" they really are.
i understand what you're writing here, but i disagree with it. As i previously stated, i don't think that "beliefs" are, at least in most cases, guesses or substitutes for knowledge. They do not represent "truth" or knowing, but represent both socio-economic and anecdotally-supported values. i think that they are most often
used to defend behavior and/or actions that cannot be justified by either a moral or a utilitarian enquiry. They are not always used in this manner, and most personal beliefs lie fallow and are relatively harmless.
It would not be averse to your general position to acknowledge that when most people say "I believe" they are not asserting facts, but declaring a rhetorical position they support by action. Sure, those persons may not be self-aware enough to see it that way, but let's face it --neither are you.
JLNobody wrote:
Pardon my pedantism, Razzleg. My use of "hypothetical" here is not intended to be exactly what you mean by hypothesis, a methodological tool/ empirically testable proposition. I refer to heuristic presuppositions.
i understand what you've written, and i know that you did, too. In my response, i was subverting a specialized term used by an interlocutor to make a rhetorical debate-point: to object to "belief" as substitute for knowledge. i do not think that beliefs are guesses based on reliable information.
JLNobody wrote: Right or wrong I do not see subjective experience as the opposite of objective facts; I see the facts of "my" life as subjective phenomena, i.e., interpretations, and all of that as real--meaning both subjective and objective. What you may be seeing as experience-independent or "objective" reality I see as hypothetical (theoretical rather than existential) reality
Sure, but please don't pretend that the "hypothetical" doesn't have an
immediate affect on the "subjective" experience...
Krumple wrote:
i see the brain as a probe and the senses are the sensors. The data you collect and the data I collect are identical. You can say it is how we are processing that data that turns it into subjective experience but I disagree...We might not all agree but it isn't the experience that causes it. It is a selective decision of acceptance or rejection or for purposes of completeness, neutrality. The absoluteness comes about because if you were to remove the selective decision then everything would be exactly the same. I see no room for individuality.
Your "probe" metaphor is weak -- the brain is not an instrument inserted into reality from outside it, it's a tool grown within both reality and an agent. And the "senses" are not sensors, but mediaries; and "data" is filtered, not by acceptance or rejection, but by situational-opportunity.
What, pray tell, is your explanation of "selective decision" outside of experience-able contexts? Contrary to your strawman argument, the difference between the data i am collecting and the data you are collecting is not necause we process it differently, but because the data we are processing the same way is obtained via different vantage points and yet contains limited, but related, information.
