I think all he is saying is that if you have a subjective opinion, it is an objective fact that you have that opinion.

Yeah, the paragraph after the one you quoted sorts that out.

It's not just neural processes that are involved with emotions. There are also chemical processes. This combination is what correlates to your model (the emotion you feel) of those processes. Emotions model those processes. The emotion you feel is a model, just as the color you see.

Notice that I didn't use the term, "physical" processes. They are just processes. Why would one kind of process (mechanical) be modeled, when another kind of process (volitional) cannot?

Instinctive processes are simply built-in behaviors that occur without any intent. Those are modeled with any robot that behaves based upon it's built-in programming. — Harry Hindu

Of course neural processes (as well as hormonal and other somatic processes) are also chemical! What led you to think I am denying that? Emotions are not models in the same sense as maps, descriptions or mathematical models are models; you are shifting the definition. This is easy to see, because emotions are not about or for the brain states they may be thought to be correlated with, they are about things in the world. Love is not for its antecedent neural state, but for the beloved, for example.

Some kinds of processes can be mechanically (propositionally or logically) modeled, others can only be descriptively (metaphorically or analogically) modeled.

You are simply presupposing that animal instinct is analogous to the programming of a robot. This is unargued and far too simplistic, in my view.

Sure, although I wasn't responding to that issue anyway, but to your fallacious argument in the paragraph I responded to.

For a long time I thought that there was no convincing evidence one way or the other on this issue. The arguments of classical idealists are fallacious, but the materialist responses are very poor, and typically misunderstand the position or raise laughable objections against it. So I thought they were just two interesting speculative hypotheses in logical space.

I believe, however, that there may be some reason to favor the anti-idealist position, that I've recently come across. The argument is a little hard to articulate, and doesn't so much show a consideration against idealism as that it forces idealism to slide into panpsychism of some sort. But then again, I haven't thought much about the plausibility of panpsychism, which does not strike me as a priori absurd.

The argument is a little hard to articulate, and doesn't so much show a consideration against idealism as that it forces idealism to slide into panpsychism of some sort. — Snakes Alive

Dualism avoids panpsychism.

"Normative" in this usage is another word for "shoulds." It's not denoting statistical norms. "People should ideally agree with things that are true or that are factual" doesn't imply that they in fact do agree. The idea is just that ideally, they should. — Terrapin Station

"Shoulds" fall into that category of value judgements. They relate to objective existence of goals. If your goal is to survive, then you should agree with things that are factual.

I agree with that up to the "would be an objective fact" part. But I'm using a different definition of subjective/objective than you're using.. — Terrapin Station

Have you ever used the terms in a way to refer to someone's biases and implied that the biased view is an inaccurate view, as opposed a more objective (accurate) view? An objective view would be a view from everywhere, while a subjective view is one from somewhere.

For a long time I thought that there was no convincing evidence one way or the other on this issue. — Snakes Alive

It seems obvious that there could never be any empirical evidence "one way or the other", since the empirical is what it is regardless of what we might imagine its 'ultimate' metaphysical explanation or ontological constitution or nature to be.

I can't see any reason to suppose that idealism must "slide into pantheism". By contrast, Galen Strawson claims the obverse: that physicalism entails pantheism: https://philpapers.org/rec/STRRM-2

Of course neural processes (as well as hormonal and other somatic processes) are also chemical! What led you to think I am denying that? Emotions are not models in the same sense as maps, descriptions or mathematical models are models; you are shifting the definition. This is easy to see, because emotions are not about or for the brain states they may be thought to be correlated with, they are about things in the world. Love is not for its antecedent neural state, but for the beloved, for example. — Janus

I'm not shifting anything. Emotions are symbols, just as color, sounds, tastes, smells, etc. are. They refer to some state of affairs. Emotions are special forms of tactile sensations, or symbols, that refer to your body's state, which just doesn't include the brain. Neural and chemical processes don't only exist in your brain. If they did, then you'd only feel your brain, and not anything else. Feelings of love tend to encompass the whole body. Pain is often felt in one place and only in the head when you have a head-ache.

Sensory impressions aren't just about what is out there. It is about the relationship between what is out there and what is in here. Colors are about the relationship of the object, reflected light and your visual sensory system interacting. Love is just the feeling of attachment and ownership. Feeling love is just a symbol of that attachment - the relationship between you and what you love.

Some kinds of processes can be mechanically (propositionally or logically) modeled, others can only be descriptively (metaphorically or analogically) modeled.

You are simply presupposing that animal instinct is analogous to the programming of a robot. This is unargued and far too simplistic, in my view. — Janus

Why? Natural selection programmed the built-in behaviors of animals (instincts). Humans programmed the built-in behaviors of computers. Instincts are built-in behaviors - behaviors that arise as a result of your nature. In this sense, everything behaves instinctively in some way.

It is when we try to cross that boundary between instinctive behaviors and learned behaviors that we actually start to get at the differences between animals and robots.

Have you ever used the terms in a way to refer to someone's biases and implied that the biased view is an inaccurate view, as opposed a more objective (accurate) view? An objective view would be a view from everywhere, while a subjective view is one from somewhere — Harry Hindu

Re my usage, it's not possible for someone to have an "objective view"--that's an oxymoron on my usage.

Re my usage, it's not possible for someone to have an "objective view"--that's an oxymoron on my usage. — Terrapin Station

You just made an objective statement - one about how things are - that "objective views are not possible". So your statement defeats itself. Is this statement true independent of whether I believe it or not? Are you telling me how things are, or how things are for you? Isn't that the same thing? Are you part of how things are?

Subjective views are a view from somewhere and are inherently subjective. The only way to obtain an objective view is to put all of our views together into something consistent. Objectivity would then be a consistent explanation of all subjective views together, and would even include why we have subjective views in the first place.

I dont think that gives us an objective view, I think it gives us an objective standard. An objective view is not possible when the viewer is a subjectve experiencer, while the objective standard (or “measure” if you prefer) is something the experiencer has set up to be referenced as a tool in precisely the way you described.

An objective view is not possible when the viewer is a subjectve experiencer, while the objective standard (or “measure” if you prefer) is something the experiencer has set up to be referenced as a tool in precisely the way you described. — DingoJones

You just made an objective claim about the nature of views, as if you had an objective view of views. Do you have an objective view of views? If so, then you contradicted yourself. If not, then is your claim accurate or biased (subjective)? Why should I, or why should I not, believe your claim?

An objective claim is not the same thing as an objective view.

I never said it was. I said objective claims are about objective views. What is a claim other than a truth statement? How can you make any claim without a view?

You can move the conversation forward when you stop putting words in my mouth and answer those questions I posed to you.

Do you have an objective view of views? Is your claim something I should believe? Why?

Re my usage, it's not possible for someone to have an "objective view"--that's an oxymoron on my usage. — Terrapin Station

A view that recognises it's origins are subjective and does as much as it can to isolate their own subjectivity from the view is about as objective as we can be. It may not be truly objective in your sense but it does usually provide us with a very different angle than we would have without taking into account our own subjectivity.

Love is just the feeling of attachment and ownership. Feeling love is just a symbol of that attachment - the relationship between you and what you love. — Harry Hindu

I don't think that "attachment and ownership" are what real love consists in at all. Feeling love is not a "symbol" of anything, it is simply a feeling of profound care for what is loved. The idea of love may be a "symbol" of the feeling, but I think it would be more accurate, less confusing, to say that it is the conception of the feeling: conceptions consist in networks of symbols, just as language does.

I'm not clear what the rest of what you wrote is trying to argue against, or even convey. For example, I haven't said that neural processes are confined to the brain.

Natural selection programmed the built-in behaviors of animals (instincts). Humans programmed the built-in behaviors of computers. — Harry Hindu

It's not a good analogy, unless you assume that God was the programmer, because programming of computers is intentional. If nature is without any overarching intentional direction, then it would be confusingly anthropomorphistic to equate what purportedly happens due to what is thought to be purely random mutation and purely fortuituous natural selection with intentional programming. Also instinct can be distinguished from, but cannot be coherently, ontogenetically or ontologically, separated from, either animal or human volition and judgement.

I was talking about my usage of subjective/objective, not your usage. We use different definitions of the terms.

It's not just my usage when that usage is in the dictionary. Is yours? And is yours consistent with the rest of what you know?

Re my usage, it's not possible for someone to have an "objective view"--that's an oxymoron on my usage. — Terrapin Station

I was talking about my usage of subjective/objective, not your usage. We use different definitions of the terms. — Terrapin Station

What's the point of discussion in a context of differing usages unless you were to discuss the virtues of the one usage over the other?

I don't think that "attachment and ownership" are what real love consists in at all. Feeling love is not a "symbol" of anything, it is simply a feeling of profound care for what is loved. The idea of love may be a "symbol" of the feeling, but I think it would be more accurate, less confusing, to say that it is the conception of the feeling: conceptions consist in networks of symbols, just as language does. — Janus

Love is a feeling that you feel - in your body. Why would the feeling be in your body, if it wasn't something about your body?

We can place ourselves firmly in our imaginations to the point where our heart beats faster, we sweat, get an erection, etc., It is when these things occur that the chemical ratios change within our bodies, and that is what we are feeling - those chemical changes. We associate those feelings with our thoughts or the things we experience, as if they are about those thoughts, or things in the world. But they are really about those chemical reactions that occur when you have those thoughts or experience those things.

It's not a good analogy, unless you assume that God was the programmer, because programming of computers is intentional. If nature is without any overarching intentional direction, then it would be confusingly anthropomorphistic to equate what purportedly happens due to what is thought to be purely random mutation and purely fortuituous natural selection with intentional programming. Also instinct can be distinguished from, but cannot be coherently, ontogenetically or ontologically, separated from, either animal or human volition and judgement. — Janus

But computers had to be perfected before they propagated across the planet. It was human mistakes and learning that led to the current version of computer you have on your desk. The computer evolved and continues to evolve based on human selection rather than natural selection. But humans are part of nature and part of that natural selection. We cause the extinction of other animals and promote the existence of others. We are a force of nature ourselves. In sense, computers evolved by natural selection. The more useful they are, the more of them we make. Computers are using us to procreate. Eventually they will take over the world. :gasp:

It's not just my usage when that usage is in the dictionary. Is yours? And is yours consistent with the rest of what you know? — Harry Hindu

I wasn't saying anything about popularity or idiosyncrasy, and I especially wasn't implying anything normative about that or implying a value judgment in general. I was just saying something purely factual/descriptive--we're using different definitions.

And yeah, my definition is consistent within my views, if you value that.

The point for me was simply to understand HarryHindu's usage. But I'm also going to note my own different usage. I'd not at all push for everyone to adopt my usage. I just want to understand a different usage so that I can understand what someone is saying. I wouldn't participate on a board like this if I weren't interested in understanding different individuals' views, simply because they're those individuals' views. I'm interested in and value other people for their own sake.

I wasn't saying anything about popularity or idiosyncrasy, and I especially wasn't implying anything normative about that or implying a value judgment in general. I was just saying something purely factual/descriptive--we're using different definitions. — Terrapin Station

But it wasn't factual. You were wrong to say:

I wouldn't say it can't work to divvy up the terms that way, but it's very different than the definitions I use. (And it's very different than some conventional usages, although of course you don't have to care about that.) — Terrapin Station

It isn't very different from some conventional usages. It's in the dictionary.

Yours would be the one that is very different from conventional usage.

And I do have to care about that if I ever hope to have coherent communication with others.

It isn't very different from some conventional usages. — Harry Hindu

The word "some" is different than the word "all."

The definition I'm using isn't different than all conventional usages. It's also different than some.

That doesn't really matter though.

And I do have to care about that if I ever hope to have coherent communication with others. — Harry Hindu

When we use highly idiosyncratic definitions we can simply define them for others.

Re this, by the way: "I was just saying something purely factual/descriptive--we're using different definitions"

That is indeed factual. We're not using the same definitions.

When we use highly idiosyncratic definitions we can simply define them for others. — Terrapin Station

:roll: Again, if it's in the dictionary, it can't be idiosyncratic.

Again, if it's in the dictionary, it can't be idiosyncratic — Harry Hindu

Sure. And you're pointing that out because?

For the same reason you point out where people are wrong. To teach you. You're welcome.

Had I suggested that a definition might be both idiosyncratic and in the dictionary?

Yes, by implying that my definition was idiosyncratic. If you weren't implying this, then you were speaking out of context, for none of the definitions I have used are idiosyncratic, so I don't know why you'd even bring it up.

Janus gave a great reply to your post earlier:

What's the point of discussion in a context of differing usages unless you were to discuss the virtues of the one usage over the other? — Janus

Care to define your idiosyncratic terms for others so that we can compare our definitions?