Objectivity is not an issue of someone listening to or seeing one's talking about something. Objectivity means that an idea or proposition is based on the normativity and rationality.

I guess I don't see the issue you're trying to get at here. Let's say, instead looking at the situation from Peter's and then Alexa's points of view we look at it from the point of view of a security guard watching his TV screen. There are two cameras in the room, one near the ceiling in one corner and the other near the floor in the opposite corner. The security guard switches back and forth between the views from the two cameras. Does the world change when he does that? You put an emphasis on the change in identity between the observers. Why does that matter?

There are lots of philosophical issues associated with objectivity and subjectivity, but I don't see that the situation you describe poses any significant questions.

This is an excellent question, and immediately takes me back to another excellent question first posed by Thomas Nagel: "What kind of fact is it -- if it is a fact -- that I am Thomas Nagel?" He means, is it a fact about the world, something that is objectively true? He then invokes the "centerless world" of objectivity, and says, "One very large fact seems to have been omitted from its description: the fact that a particular person in it is [my]self." Not "Thomas Nagel", you understand, but "myself".

I see you imagining a very similar situation. It appears to make no objective difference to anything whether you are Peter or Alexa. And yet, to you, it makes an enormous difference. Here you and Nagel part company, because he doesn't see this as a logical contradiction, but rather as a puzzle we haven't solved. It's an indication that we don't know what to do with terms like "objective" and "subjective" when changes of state, such as identity, appear to be merely subjective. Can subjectivity be viewed objectively? No doubt we'll understand this better if and when we understand how consciousness comes to be.

I was once an observer in a room in which my friend having an intense and sustained conversation with an other who to my eyes and ears was not there. The Friend had taken datura and that becomes my 'objective' 'rational' understanding of a situation that otherwise has (at least) two conflicting subjective views of 'the same' room.

I found the experience disconcerting, my friend rather more so, but the guy who wasn't there for me but was there for my friend is the one I worry about. What was it like for him?

In conclusion, having both subjectivity and objectivity co-exist in the same world creates a logical contradiction. — bizso09

Can you explain the contradiction? Isn't the subjective and the objective simply a description of the same reality seen from a different perspective? But if they are in opposition or some type of contradiction isn't it that case that opposites coexist and that they help to define and identify the other - no pleasure without pain, no good without bad, no wellness without sickness? It might be said, of course, that everything is ultimately subjective and that agreement or what we call objectivity is simply inter-subjectivity - a truth we manufacture together.

How to account for subjectivity in an objective world? — bizso09

The former is in part constituted by the former just as higher dimensional spaces / bandwidths are constituted by lower dimensional spaces / bandwidths. Subjectivity (i.e. my view from here) is an emergent property – phenomenal-perspectival aspect – of objectivity (i.e. public view from anywhere).

I was once an observer in a room in which my friend having an intense and sustained conversation with an other who to my eyes and ears was not there — unenlightened

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!)

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...

H. Mearns Antigonish

(couldn't resist) :cool:

In conclusion, having both subjectivity and objectivity co-exist in the same world creates a logical contradiction. — bizso09

There's no contradiction in things having different modes of existing.

A room with people has an objective mode of existing. The room and the people exist as such regardless of anyone's experiences or knowledge about them.

Their talk, however, has a social mode of existing. Its existence depends on our knowledge of language, or else it's just noise.

Your experience has a subjective mode of existing. It exists only for you when you have it.

By experiencing the room and talking to the people, you can have objective knowledge about them and their experiences, regardless of the fact that their experiences, just like yours, have a subjective mode of existing.

I'm not entirely sure how you mean everything. But I like your idea, and have a thought. I propose adding a person, Jane. You are Peter. Alexa and I are both present, observing as you and Jane interact. This is Alexa 3.0. She has visual and olfactory sensors, so observes pretty much what I do. But, while I am having a subjective experience of watching you and Jane interact, Alexa is not. Because there is something it is like to be me, to me, but there is not something it is like to be Alexa, to Alexa. Therefore, there is something it is like for me to experience something, but there is not something it is like for Alexa to experience something.

You can be banned for mentioning P zombies. Read the guidelines.

The condition is dependent. Time, interest that life revolves around, attention spending efficiency, awareness. In others, in self. How do emotions attach to tangible material things, but the experience being subjective doesnt matter. The objective part is that it is all subjective, biased, or effected by envirment, nature, nurture....but luck, chance, and timing is funny. Love is a funny thing. A funny thing and the humor of it, is of the funny person and laughed at by those with similar humor, aware high, or those who are followers, lost/looking rightfully so, rationally...doing what they ought to be, right where they need to be. THEY have to SEE that first, but to see means choosing to ignore what they know from what they see, is believing what they dont want to see, but blaming the world praying for God or the world to change. Before we ask of such demands of the world, Universe, God, Angels, As above so below, we ought to have answered and confirmed with surety that no change on our end is worth the effort. That option exists, the mind state or frame under the influence of many factors play a role in decision making moments that cant be undone past a certain point.

- Kizzy, on objective and subjective coexisting, pg 3 of 7 of thread posted by Srap Tasmaner, "Degrees of reality" IT (in bold) being a subjective life experience.

I am leaning towards thinking that it is not wise to consider this a paradox. Consider J's comment, how consciousness and certainty may play a role in the identity changing states. I want to note that I do think subjectivity can be viewed objectively. I am aligned with both and here, as my stances are compatible with what they are stating and I'm sure others have and will also agree upon.

A ground ought to exist, for commonality!

Is it stable to build upon? IS the foundation too heavy for the lands? Only the weight we put upon such concepts, that are rather simply answered in time instead of solved at once. The pieces are eventually put together, but guided by? An observer? No, perhaps by the knowings of one, once. A blueprint or template does not exist, we are that. We guide the most high and in our consciousness (subconscious state may be unknown to some, meaning they are not aware of how it involves itself with the identity, character or personality of the person with the experiences had throughout ones life/s journey. but they may be known by others via aware of subconscious and possible effects but its hard to prove)

You do not HAVE TO prove it to self, that is important to remember. Trust the mystery of what comes with the things you do know with certainty or surety...beliefs? faith? And verify accordingly as our minds fill with new intel everyday, updating our opinions via new information. Changing minds deserve that chance to do so, but TIME.....is of the essence, perhaps.

Time. Attachment to the goal, to the purpose you have in this life is done on / with the will of the being, then the soul moves through us, from us, because of us, IS US and LOVES...us? Love and the willingness to accept or give love is displayed via behaviors, from circumstances born into without option. Thank your folks, daily. As above, so below. LOVE holds power, over us under us in front of us. Deserving we all are, deciding that we deserve it is the hard part. Some do not get that chance to change their mind, or do they? Can it really ever be "too late" ?

We refuse to take and give it (it being love) equally, and that is sad to me in itself. Love is for us, proof for the self, that life is more than us. FOR US, FROM WHOM? or WHAT? Life is amazing to experience as a human, a gift. AND for that gift, I thank you.

In every chance I get to be reminded. Another breath, another day. Taking this for granted, is impossible. It can be denied in the face of truth by those faking the surety, fake confidence in themselves, tricking the brain, fooling only the self and others of the same kind, that believe you as the coward you and the weakness in them. To claim righteousness over truth, shame on you. Being right is truth to those and it was always wrong to begin with. You ought to be wrong. Seems obvious to me even if we all were right.

From bad and wrong, the truth is to be revealed. The bad is nothing without the good. And SO, If everything is good, then maybe I just have a great view and I'll happen to continue to enjoy it while I can, while it lasts. Where is it going from there? I dont wonder, I trust the direction...

I would like to wrap up by going back to how @jkop put it,

By experiencing the room and talking to the people, you can have objective knowledge about them and their experiences, regardless of the fact that their experiences, just like yours, have a subjective mode of existing.

From that I reiterate and have brought up in the past, this is an example of my unfocused, fire fueled attention towards bringing objective from the subject-- the interplay between our subjective experiences and the objective knowledge we can derive from them is of interest, my passion really.

Perhaps if I say G. Crombies, people will know what I mean.

...my whole experience of the world is different, in the two scenarios — bizso09

Sure, your experience of the world has changed. But the world hasn't. The set of facts concerning the world remains unchanged, ex hypothesis, despite a change in the facts concerning your experience.

Or if you prefer, the facts that change are those that are subjective, while the facts that do not change are those that are objective.

No contradiction.

However, from my point of view, there is a significant difference in the two states. Namely, my identity has changed. In other words, my centre of perception has moved from one person to another. That means that my first person point of view is different, and my whole experience of the world is different, in the two scenarios. Therefore, for me the two scenarios and their respective states of the world are not identical. — bizso09

If, when you underwent this metamorphosis, you also inherited the memories of the new identity, then obviously you wouldn't know anything had happened. Peter would become Alexa, but as far as both are concerned, nothing has happened. If Peter becomes Alexa but retains Peter's memories, then Peter/Alexa would presumably suffer severe cognitive dissonance along the lines of 'who am I?!?' We are indeed differentiated only because our experiences, constitution, location and so on are unique to us. But the primitive sense of 'being a subject' is not unique to any individual. It's only the content associated with that sense which differs.

In conclusion, having both subjectivity and objectivity co-exist in the same world creates a logical contradiction. — bizso09

The claim that this creates a logical contradiction misunderstands the nature of subjectivity. Subjective and objective accounts are not commensurable in the way required to generate a formal contradiction. They operate in different domains of discourse. Objectivity concerns what can be described in third-person terms—facts that are invariant under changes in perspective. Subjectivity concerns the first-person experience, which is inherently tied to a particular point of view, for which perspective is an intrinsic characteristic.

I wish, I wish I wasn’t here
Forever stuck upon the stair
Unloved by neighbours in the hall
I wish i wasn’t here at all

They wake me up at two or three
With never an apology
They do not see me; I am small
And they are all so very tall
So they ignore me night and day,
Except to tell me ”Go away”.

And I have done what they all say,
I’ve gone away and am not there.
And yet they are not satisfied;
I think they wish that I had died.

Sure, your experience of the world has changed. But the world hasn't. The set of facts concerning the world remains unchanged, ex hypothesis, despite a change in the facts concerning your experience.

Or if you prefer, the facts that change are those that are subjective, while the facts that do not change are those that are objective.

No contradiction. — Banno

I agree here with Banno.

There's no contradiction, even if Alexa would refer to the cloud-based voice server. Then there's obviously a huge difference with being a human called Peter and being a machine that uses software and is linked to the net. An objective world view simply doesn't take into account subjectivity at all. Me being in a room with Peter and Alexa and you being either Peter or Alexa doesn't simply matter in an objective viewpoint where there is Peter and Alexa and a third person in the room. That's it. The subjectivity of doesn't matter, it cannot matter because the viewpoint is objective, not subjective. Hence no contradiction.

You simply cannot get from an objective viewpoint to a subjective viewpoint. In my view, the hard problem of consciousness is a perfect example of this.

The real problem here is that this hasn't been described in a formal logical or mathematical theory that it is so.

Yes, this is more or less the way I (and I believe Nagel) see it. It's not a matter of contradiction. What remains concerning, of course, is the huge gap between these sets of facts that we're calling objective and subjective. Nagel presses home the point that the fact of my identity isn't trivial to me, it can't be ignored, or relegated to an unphilosophical minor level. And yet it isn't even a fact at all, objectively. What's worse, we place a great deal of emphasis, ordinarily, on the concept of a "fact" as being objective, something independent of individual viewpoints.

I'm not suggesting any solution to this concern. I think we should treat it rather as a koan, something we're aware is not comprehensible to us at this moment, but stimulates thought.

As for the idea that there might be a formal logical description of this: Would it involve handling statements like "It is true that, from Peter's point of view, 'I am Peter' is true" and "'I am Peter' is true IFF the extensions of 'I' and 'Peter' are the same"? Interesting idea. Someone must have done some work on this. We could also play around with whether it's possible to claim that "I am Peter" is an objective fact, odd though that may appear. If I'm in the room with Peter, and he says, "I am Peter," would I be likely to deny that he's stating a fact? No. Am I just taking his word for it, then? His word for what, exactly? I think there's more to it than that, but I need to think about it more.

If you are genuinely interested in the subject, you may be interested here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 I've spent years considering it. There's a summary after the initial OP from the next poster that breaks it down nicely.

What's worse, we place a great deal of emphasis, ordinarily, on the concept of a "fact" as being objective, something independent of individual viewpoints. — J

This is the real problem in uh... modern science, logic, philosophy.

As I said, we can see this in how lost we are when the issue is subjectivity itself and when we simply cannot avoid it. As the example I gave: what else would consciousness be related to than subjectivity? That my heart beats isn't something that I can by my will simply stop, but to write an answer to this thread is an option I can choose to do.

I'm not suggesting any solution to this concern. I think we should treat it rather as a koan, something we're aware is not comprehensible to us at this moment, but stimulates thought. — J

To say this in another form, there are still basic elementary truths that we can discover in philosophy and logic that still are a mystery to us. This is one of them.

Let me illustrate the contradictory nature of this koan.

As per previous suggestions, let's say we add Jane to the room. In addition, let's define I as the centre of perception, or what's playing on the security guy's screen.(1) Let's define the world as a collection of all true facts.(2)

a) From my point of view, in the first scenario, the statement I am Jane evaluates to false, I am Peter evaluates to true, I am Alexa evaluates to false.
b) From my point of view, in the second scenario, the statement I am Jane evaluates to false, I am Peter evaluates to false, I am Alexa evaluates to true.
c) From your point of view, in the first scenario, the statement I am Jane evaluates to true, I am Peter evaluates to false, I am Alexa evaluates to false.
d) From your point of view, in the second scenario, the statement I am Jane evaluates to true, I am Peter evaluates to false, I am Alexa evaluates to false.

There is one world in existence because facts are either true or false, and there is one collection of true facts. The question is, which world is true?

In the first scenario, from my and your points of view, statements a) and c) contradict.
In the second scenario, from my and your points of view, statements b) and d) contradict.
In the first and second scenarios, from my point of view, statements a) and b) contradict.
In the first and second scenarios, from your point of view, statements c) and d) match.

Given this, we find it impossible to construct a world that is true in any given scenario from all points of view.

Resolution: In general, one way to resolve this would be to discard all points of view, but one. In that case, the correct world could be inferred from simple observation of one’s own centre of perception. However, this resolution may imply solipsism, with which other points of view may disagree.

Someone must have done some work on this. — J

The key work on Indexicals is apparently Kaplan. Much of the discussion thereabouts also involves demonstratives. It's not an area I've looked at in detail, and it has some curious results... logical necessity becomes a bit unstuck...

Might be an interesting read-through topic; it would require quite a bit of work. Is "I am here now" a logical truth? Intuitively, anyone who utters such a sentence is uttering a truth; yet it is not true in every possible world that I am here now - I might have been somewhere else...

The real problem here is that this hasn't been described in a formal logical or mathematical theory that it is so. — ssu

Yep. There are ambiguities here that formality might serve to iron out.

Given this, we find it impossible to construct a world that is true in any given scenario from all points of view. — bizso09

we place a great deal of emphasis, ordinarily, on the concept of a "fact" as being objective, something independent of individual viewpoints. — J

The whole idea of an absolute objective truth has been radically undermined by science itself. See Ethan Siegel (a popular and hard-headed physics writer):

Space and time might be real, but they’re not objectively real; only real relative to each individual observer or measurer. — Ethan Siegel

He concludes:

It isn’t the job of science, contrary to popular belief, to explain the Universe that we inhabit. Instead, science’s goal is to accurately describe the Universe that we inhabit, and in that it’s been remarkably successful. But the questions that most of us get excited about asking — and we do it by default, without any prompting — often involve figuring out why certain phenomena happen. ...

One such question that we cannot answer is whether there is such a thing as an objective, observer-independent reality. Many of us assume that it does, and we build our interpretations of quantum physics in such ways that they admit an underlying, objective reality. Others don’t make that assumption, and build equally valid interpretations of quantum physics that don’t necessarily have one. All we have to guide us, for better or for worse, is what we can observe and measure. We can physically describe that, successfully, either with or without an objective, observer-independent reality. At this moment in time, it’s up to each of us to decide whether we’d rather add on the philosophically satisfying but physically extraneous notion that “objective reality” is meaningful.

It isn’t the job of science, contrary to popular belief, to explain the Universe that we inhabit. Instead, science’s goal is to accurately describe the Universe that we inhabit, and in that it’s been remarkably successful.

This sentence contradicts itself. Describing the things we observe just is explaining how they work.

:up: Sometimes a little poetry succeeds where pages of prose do not.

Is "I am here now" a logical truth? Intuitively, anyone who utters such a sentence is uttering a truth; yet it is not true in every possible world that I am here now - I might have been somewhere else... — Banno

Which would lead me to think that it's actually an empirical truth, a fact about this world -- which gets back to Nagel's question, "What kind of fact is it?" Because we want to say that empirical truths are verifiable in certain standard ways. "I am here now," it would seem, is irreducibly first-person, and yet it would make no sense for you -- or anyone -- to deny it about me on those grounds. You couldn't very well say, "Well, that's just your point of view." This is where some kind of formalism that could "translate 1st person" might help, I really don't know.

Yep. There are ambiguities here that formality might serve to iron out. — Banno

I've been thinking that what logic is missing is some kind of axiom of uniqueness, which would give the logical foundation for subjectivity. What this means is still difficult to explain. You see, randomness or statistical "White Noise" is a very special type of uniqueness, which cannot be forecasted. Yet the opposite of random or being without a pattern, patternless, is something that is predictable, calculable, systematic and organized.

Perhaps something that can be modelled precisely in an objective manner: we can look at it from the outside and if we have all the data at hand, we can perfectly forecast it's actions or how it is going to develop.

So here's my five cents: Subjectivity is something that makes an entity unique and uncomputable in an precise way. Something being computational has to be an entity that can be modelled in an objective way. There simply has to be a link between objectivity and computability. Something that is unique doesn't have a computable pattern is somehow linked to the subjective.

How?

That's a great question to be answered.