It does, because it's no inference. It's an observation. Inferences are not observations.

Not that that's all that I typed, but it's enough for the moment.

It does, because it's no inference. It's an observation. Inferences are not observations. — Terrapin Station

How do you observe that your Kindle is an objective thing (where an objective thing is a thing that exists even when it's not being observed)?

You'd have to observe that it exists even when it's not being observed, but you already said that that's not what you're doing (and how could you, anyway?).

First off, that's not at all the subjective/objective distinction that I make.

I also believe that "exists even when it's not being observed" is not at all part of any conventional definition of "objective." That's commonly considered to be a property of many objective things, but it's not a necessary property, it's not part of any conventional definition of the term "objective."

The distinction that I make is this, which I've spelled out before, and I'm pretty sure in a post addressed to you (in another thread):

Subjective=something that obtains in minds.

Objective=something that obtains extramentally.

So we observe something that's not a mind. We observe something extramental.

First off, that's not at all the subjective/objective distinction that I make. — Terrapin Station

But I believe it's the one that @intrapersona makes, and so (again) you're not addressing his claim; which is that that things continue to exist even when not being observed is only ever an inference.

I also believe that "exists even when it's not being observed" is not at all part of any conventional definition of "objective."

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy would disagree with you: "Many philosophers would use the term 'objective reality' to refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)."

The distinction that I make is this, which I've spelled out before, and I'm pretty sure in a post addressed to you (in another thread):

Subjective=something that obtains in minds.

Objective=something that obtains extramentally.

So we observe something that's not a mind.

What does "to obtain extramentally" mean? Seems like "to exist even when not being observed (or thought about)".

But I believe it's the one that intrapersona makes, — Michael

Based on?

I don't see why you would think the movement of the Earth relevant. Do you not say of the statue "it's not moving"? I'm sure you do. It would be very strange of you to start telling people that it was moving at hundreds of kilometers a second. And it would certainly be strange if you were to say "it's not moving, but only in a metaphorical sense". — Michael

If the statue is fixed to the earth, and the earth is moving, then in what sense is it true to say that the statue is not moving? And if the statue really is moving, then how is the phrase "it's not moving" anything more than metaphor? Clearly, if I said of the statue "it's not moving", I would be saying this in a metaphorical sense. If you took this to be a literal expression, then you would be mislead, because I clearly believe that the statue is moving.

If the statue is fixed to the earth, and the earth is moving, then in what sense is it true to say that the statue is not moving? — Metaphysician Undercover

In the ordinary sense, i.e. the only sense that matters when making such a claim. The truth of the claim has nothing to do with what the Earth is doing, as the claim doesn't say anything about what the Earth is doing. When I say that the statue isn't moving I'm not saying that its location in the universe isn't changing, so that its location in the universe is changing is not a relevant fact. Rather I'm saying something about the statue's location relative to the immediate environment (e.g. the ground), and its location relative to the immediate environment isn't changing, and so the statue isn't moving.

You have to examine the truth of claims like "the statue isn't moving" and "the sun rises" in the appropriate context, which you aren't.

When I say that the statue isn't moving I'm not saying that its location in the universe isn't changing... — Michael

Then what are you saying?

Regarding "the sun will rise tomorrow" as a statement of fact, let's try to remember that this not an example of deductive reasoning, it is an example of cumulative induction based on empirical evidence. The point of bringing it up was not to give an example of an objective scientific fact or even an objective fact, but instead to explain the logical structure which forms the very foundation of science itself, and therefore supports and limits the "objective scientific" knowledge that it is alleged to produce. It's about the strength of the argument and the form of reasoning it employs, not it's ultimate objectivity; it's not "objective" in the sense that it is "absolute certainty".

Geocentric models of the solar system and much of ancient astronomy could be described as the result of primitive scientific approaches to gaining knowledge. Even while they did not have accurate descriptions of the fundamental hierarchy of phenomena that caused the goings on of the night sky they still had a very reliable ability to predict certain events. Even while they had a lot wrong, like the fact that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around, the "objectivity" of their knowledge (what they could reliably predict) was never founded on the basis of "objective fundamental truth", it was founded on "reliable truth". The steady succession of improvements made from the primitive models of the past to the more objective models of today are products of the scientific process in action. They might not be ultimate objective truth, but they're the best we've got.

I don't see why we need objective things to exist for the word "objective" to mean what it does (and so for the word "subjective" to mean what it does). Words can be meaningful even if they don't refer to real things.

If we define an objective thing as a thing that continues to exist even when it's not being seen and a subjective thing as a thing that exists only when it's being seen, and if nothing continues to exist when it's not being seen then nothing is an objective thing.

To say that if nothing continues to exist when it's not being seen then those things that exist only when they're being seen (subjective things) are "really" objective things just doesn't make sense. It's a straightforward contradiction. — Michael

It's not that we need objective things to exist for the word "objective" to mean what it does. Objective is simply what exists. If all that exists is your mind, then your mind becomes reality itself - not some subjective perspective of what is - that doesn't include everything that is. It is the idealists who are misusing terms. They have this emotional investment in the existence of their mind and doubt anything beyond that. If that is the case, then they have defined their mind out of existence because in their view - their mind is reality. They are simply using a different term (mind) for something for which there is already a term (reality).

If there is nothing outside of my mind, then you only exist as text on a computer screen, not as an actual human being with a mind as the cause for their being text on the screen that I read.

Objective is simply what exists. — Harry Hindu

I highly doubt that intrapersona is claiming that "[existence] is only ever an inference at best". Rather it seems that he's saying "[the existence of things not being seen or thought about] is only ever an inference at best". This would be consistent with the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition of "objective reality" as "anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)."

They have this emotional investment in the existence of their mind and doubt anything beyond that. If that is the case, then they have defined their mind out of existence because in their view - their mind is reality. They are simply using a different term (mind) for something for which there is already a term (reality).

They're not just changing the word that they use to refer to reality. They're making a claim about what sort of things are real. Minds are real, experiences are real, but objects existing even when not being seen or thought about are not real – they're a realist fiction.

Not in the sense that's being used here, which as explained in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "refers to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)." — Michael

Which does NOT say anything about the issue of whether things exist when one isn't observing them. That's the conventional definition, which is consistent with mine. The distinction is simply whether something is mental versus whether it is extramental--whether it's in or "of" minds versus whether it exists outside of minds.

Which does NOT say anything about things existing when one isn't observing them. — Terrapin Station

It says exactly that. Objective things are things that exist independent of any conscious awareness of them (via perception, thought, etc.).

The distinction is simply whether something is mental versus whether it is extramental--whether it's in or "of" minds versus whether it exists outside of minds.

And to say that a thing "exists outside of minds" is to say that it exists independently of any conscious awareness of them (via perception, thought, etc), right? If not then what?

Objective things are things that exist independent of any conscious awareness of them (via perception, thought, etc.). — Michael

Yes. That is not the same thing as "they continue to exist when we're not aware of them."

That's because logically, things can exist that are independent of any conscious awareness of them, but contingently, those things cease to exist when we're not aware of them. You're inferring a causal connection that isn't justified to infer (from a strictly logical perspective).

Yes. That is not the same thing as "they continue to exist when we're not aware of them." — Terrapin Station

What? It's exactly the same thing. If a thing exists independently of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.) then it continues to exist even when we're not aware of it. That's just what it means.

That's because logically, things can exist that are independent of any conscious awareness of them, but contingently, those things cease to exist when we're not aware of them.

This is just a contradiction.

You're not making any sense.

What? It's exactly the same thing. If a thing exists independently of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.) then it continues to exist even when we're not aware of it. — Michael

Not necessarily. Assume that things like toasters exist and that they're not just mental phenomena. Now, let's assume that the toaster is separated from an observer so that nothing the observer does has a causal affect on it in any manner. The observer sees the toaster from a distance. The observer looks away, and completely coincidentally, when the observer looks away, the toaster disappears. Nothing logically precludes this. However, the toaster was in no way dependent on the observation of it. It just so happened that at the moment the observer looked away, the toaster "popped out of existence."

This seems like a straightforward contradiction — Michael

What's the P that is being both asserted and denied, so that it amounts to P & ~P?

Not necessarily. Assume that things like toasters exist and that they're not just mental phenomena. Now, let's assume that the toaster is separated from an observer so that nothing the observer does has a causal affect on it in any manner. The observer sees the toaster from a distance. The observer looks away, and completely coincidentally, when the observer looks away, the toaster disappears. Nothing logically precludes this. However, the toaster was in no way dependent on the observation of it. It just so happened that at the moment the observer looked away, the toaster "popped out of existence." — Terrapin Station

You're being ambiguous here. When you say "it disappears" are you just saying "it disappears from sight" or are you saying "it ceases to exist"? The former isn't relevant, and the latter isn't realism.

What's the P that is being both asserted and denied, so that it amounts to P & ~P?

That the thing exists even when we're not aware of it.

The former isn't relevant, and the latter isn't realism, and so would mean that the toaster isn't an objective thing. — Michael

I wrote "popped out of existence" so there's no ambiguity if you actually read what I wrote. Realism has nothing to do with believing that objective things can't pop in and out of existence. You'd only believe that because for whatever reasons, you've misunderstood what realism is.

That the thing exists even when we're not aware of it. — Michael

Where in the post in question did I assert P then?

I wote "popped out of existence" so there's no ambiguity if you actually read what I wrote. — Terrapin Station

It the thing pops out of existence when it isn't seen then it doesn't "exist as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)" – because to exist as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.) just is to continue to exist when it isn't seen – and so isn't an objective thing as per the definition given in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Realism has nothing to do with believing that objective things can't pop in and out of existence. You'd only believe that because for whatever reasons, you've misunderstood what realism is.

Then forget the term "realism" as I don't want to get into that discussion again. If the toaster pops out of existence when it isn't being seen then it doesn't exist as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.) and so isn't an objective thing.

Where in the post in question did I assert P then?

In the part I quoted: "things can exist that are independent of any conscious awareness of them".

This is really getting ridiculous.

It the thing pops out of existence when it isn't seen then it doesn't "exist as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)" — Michael

How, per the example I described, do you believe that the toaster is dependent on conscious awareness of it?

How, per the example I described, do you believe that the toaster is dependent on conscious awareness of it? — Terrapin Station

Are you being serious? You just said that it pops out of existence when we're not aware of it.

You're just wasting my time now.

Yes, I'm completely serious. It pops out of existence, as I stipulated, completely coincidentally when we happen to not look at it. So how is that dependent on conscious awareness? That it popped out of existence had nothing to do with the observation in the example I stipulated. There was no causal connection--I specified that. It was a complete coincidence--I specified that, too.

So where is the dependence?

Yes, I'm completely serious. It pops out of existence, as I stipulated, completely coincidentally when we happen to not look at it. So how is that dependent on conscious awareness. That it popped out of existence had nothing to do with the observation in the example I stipulated. There was no causal connection--I specified that. It was a complete coincident--I specified that, too.

So where is the dependence? — Terrapin Station

"It exists when we're not aware of it" and "it exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it" mean the same thing. Therefore if it doesn't exist when we're not aware of it then it doesn't exist as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it. Therefore it isn't an objective thing.

The question I asked you was "where is the dependence in the example I specified."

Answer that question please--instead of taking a step back and doubling down on your misreading because you can't answer it.

If the above doesn't answer your question then your question isn't relevant. We're discussing the IEP's definition of "objective thing".

Stop being intellectually dishonest, please..

The way to answer the question I asked is by saying, "The dependence on conscious awareness in the example you gave is ______________" and then you fill in the blank.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest. I'm staying on topic. The definition of "objective thing" as given by the IEP is that of a thing that exists even when not being seen. If this doesn't address your question then your question is a red herring.

No it isn't. You're misunderstanding the definition. I explained why. You're ignoring that I explained why.

You're being intellectually dishonest by not dealing with that.

It's just like yesterday when you didn't even bother to respond to my question about your assertion that the thread-starter had in mind your misunderstanding of the terms. I asked you for the basis of that belief and you just ignored it. Because there is no basis for that belief, but you didn't want to admit that you just assumed that he had in mind how you use the terms.