[ExI] Subjective/Objective

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 08/07/2026 04:14, Mike Dougherty wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026, 1:48 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> Can an external party, even in principle, know for sure what someone else is experiencing?
>>
>> This is, I think, an important question that determines whether 'subjective' phenomena can be regarded as separate from 'objective' phenomena. Something that is objective is something that we can all verify and hopefully agree on, that we all have access to. Examples include the moon, the law of gravitation, 1+1=2, dead people don't talk, etc.
>>
>> Subjective things are those that only one person, the person who experiences the subjective phenomenon, has access to. Examples include what it is like to be a bat, the experience of a specific shade of maroon, the sadness I feel when thinking of my dead cat (I really miss him, but don't expect anyone else to feel the same way).
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> What I'm saying is that there is absolutely NO WAY that one person can, without any uncertainty, know what another person is experiencing or has experienced in the past. We are all sealed vessels, with our own unique contents that is only accessible to ourselves. I don't expect that to ever change, even with the advent of uploading (what comes after uploading, though, is an open question, and may destroy my argument. Time will tell).
>>
>> If anyone can think of a refutation to this view, please post it here. I'd be most interested in reading it (but please, PLEASE, use plain language! No Brentian 'knowledge of', 'fundamental/causal qualities' or 'wrong physics', please!).
>
> I think the definitions are too assumptive.
>
> I suppose you are asserting something about the precision and fidelity of knowing subjective experience. I bet you'd agree that hitting your thumb with a hammer subjectively "sucks" - but I'm not sure the various permutations of nuance need to be deeply modelled down to neuronal correlates of consciousness to precisely grasp the fundamental of whatever swear words you use to name the sensation, nor do we need measure the wavelength of light to know what color is the inevitable bruise.
>
> We "think" we "know" what a hydrogen atom is, or is like, or what it does - but who really knows? If the math works, there might well be unicorns and leprechauns dancing around the nucleus.
>
> Refutation? No, i think i agree with you. I don't think that needs to be as much an issue for each of us to share a world of common things that we each enjoy in myriad ways - whether redness of red, qualia of quale, or pheasant of fez.
>
>>

Good points, and I hadn't considered the issue of precision or fidelity at all. This raises the possibility of a spectrum, or a Subjective/Objective sliding scale of some kind. I'll have to think further about that.
Thanks.

--
Ben

On Wednesday, 8 July 2026 at 00:29, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026, 1:48 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> Can an external party, even in principle, know for sure what someone else is experiencing?
>>
>> This is, I think, an important question that determines whether 'subjective' phenomena can be regarded as separate from 'objective' phenomena. Something that is objective is something that we can all verify and hopefully agree on, that we all have access to. Examples include the moon, the law of gravitation, 1+1=2, dead people don't talk, etc.
>>
>> Subjective things are those that only one person, the person who experiences the subjective phenomenon, has access to. Examples include what it is like to be a bat, the experience of a specific shade of maroon, the sadness I feel when thinking of my dead cat (I really miss him, but don't expect anyone else to feel the same way).
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> What I'm saying is that there is absolutely NO WAY that one person can, without any uncertainty, know what another person is experiencing or has experienced in the past. We are all sealed vessels, with our own unique contents that is only accessible to ourselves. I don't expect that to ever change, even with the advent of uploading (what comes after uploading, though, is an open question, and may destroy my argument. Time will tell).
>>
>> If anyone can think of a refutation to this view, please post it here. I'd be most interested in reading it (but please, PLEASE, use plain language! No Brentian 'knowledge of', 'fundamental/causal qualities' or 'wrong physics', please!).
>
>>
>
> I think the definitions are too assumptive.
>
> I suppose you are asserting something about the precision and fidelity of knowing subjective experience. I bet you'd agree that hitting your thumb with a hammer subjectively "sucks" - but I'm not sure the various permutations of nuance need to be deeply modelled down to neuronal correlates of consciousness to precisely grasp the fundamental of whatever swear words you use to name the sensation, nor do we need measure the wavelength of light to know what color is the inevitable bruise.
>
> We "think" we "know" what a hydrogen atom is, or is like, or what it does - but who really knows? If the math works, there might well be unicorns and leprechauns dancing around the nucleus.
>
> Refutation? No, i think i agree with you. I don't think that needs to be as much an issue for each of us to share a world of common things that we each enjoy in myriad ways - whether redness of red, qualia of quale, or pheasant of fez.
>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260708/32836ccc/attachment.htm>