Creation, Evolution, and faith

If lots of people have the same dream has that dream been "objectified" in your view? As a starting point I would suggest "the same for everyone"?

Well that is the crux of the question here is it not? Why cannot people share experiences like dreams? What is it that makes us think such experiences cannot be objectified? How are they fundamentally different from our expereince of physical reality? You and I can both commonly and independently identify the colour red (ignoring the unnecessary complication of shades and possible colour blindness for one moment). If we did an experiment where we were each given a box of a 1000 coloured cubes and asked to remove all of the red ones we would expect both of us to independently get the same result. We can similarly commonly and independently confirm the wavelength of light this "red" label pertains to.Thus "red" is objective despite the fact that our individual perceptions of red are wholly subjective and unavailable to each other.No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But why can they not have the same dream in the same way that they can both consistently identify "red"? What is the difference between the two types of experience? Why can we consistently share "red" but only share our dreams by relating them? It tells us we are consistently talking about the same aspect of reality that exists external to our own minds.

Are you simply saying that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively? If so that is so inarguable as to be almost inane. Oh Christ - Not another proof merchant.Are you saying that objective reality doesn't exist? What are you saying here exactly?

You seem to be doing your usual thing of randomly posting disagreement without actually taking a coherent position of your own. I can only ask again - What are you saying here exactly? What exactly is your position?

Such as?Any in what sense would we expect science and rock music to meet comparable criteria anyway? My objection is to what you seem to be saying here: As per Message 384I will ask (yet again) what exactly do you mean by this? Do you even know what you mean?For example - If a number of people independently claim to have had wholly subjective experiences of Allah does this mean that Allah has been objectively evidenced as far as you are concerned? Is this an example of "shared subjectivity" or not? If not then what is?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Is the claim that god exists external to ones own mind a claim about objective reality? If it is does it require objective evidence? My objection is to the ambiguity. Which you still have not rectified. Yet again - What exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"? Can you give an example?I still don't even know whether your position accepts or rejects the existence of objective reality. In which case you once again appear to be making the inarguable and largely inane observation that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively. Well on that we agree. But you still seem happier stating what you don't mean than specifying what you do mean. So what exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"? Can you give an example that is not just subjective perception of objective reality?

Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared subjectivity" or not?If not I can only conclude that you have no idea what it is you are talking about and that you are simply combining words in ways that you find intuitively appealing.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can you give an example of what you mean?

You expect me to come up with examples of your position?If you do actually know what you mean why won't you tell us? Instead of continually telling us what it is you don't mean?To me "shared subjectivity" would imply things like my Allah example: But in typically evasive and ambiguous fashion all you said to that was "No". So I have no idea what you do mean. More to the point it is becoming increasingly obvious that nor do you.

Well apparently not. Myself and Rahvin have both given you examples of what we thought you meant. And you have told us both that is not what you meant. Theoderic is none the wiser as to what you do actually mean either. So far all you have told us is that:1) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" in the sense of my Allah example2) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" in the sense of popular agreement as per Rahvin's understanding.3) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" to be simply the necessarily subjective perception of objective reality How can anyone disagree with you if they don't know what you mean? I am asking you what you mean. I am asking for an example of what you do mean. I am asking you you to stop telling us what you don't mean and instead tell us what you do mean.Why is that so hard for you to do? It is quite obvious that you are just combining words which sound intuitively meaningful to you without actually having any idea what you are talking about.I ask again - Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared subjectivity" or not?What does this have to do with atheism?Your inability to explain yourself is a great way of providing ammunition to those who say that you post random disagreements without ever having coherent position of your own. Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared subjectivity" or not?

Three people express their bewilderment at what you mean. Two of them give you examples of what they think you mean but (apparently) fail to get it right. You are repeatedly asked to provide examples of what it is that you do mean. Yet you unilaterally consider your position to be crystal clear and in no need of further explanation or example. Then FFS why don't you give us just one? Oh don't try and play the "Off-Topic" line to evade answering the question. If you are unable to give an example of what you mean why not just admit that this is the case?

So I should be able to come up with examples myself, you can come up with "zillions" of examples but you still cannot give us a single example because the demand for an example makes no sense.Well that clears that up then. Are you going to dig this little hole of yours any deeper?You obviously consider objectivity to be like pornography. You can't explain what it is you just know it when you see it. But that really isn't much of a position is it? My problem is with you creating superficially meaningful sounding word cocktails that you then present as some sort of position.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I shall conclude that:

• You have no idea what you mean when you say "objectivity is just shared subjectivity" as posted in Message 383
• You are unable to admit this.

How do you expect anyone to comment on anything you say regarding objectivity when neither they nor you have any friggin idea what it is you are talking about on the subject?

How can we disagree with you or state where you are wrong when we don't know what you mean? You seem to want to avoid having to defend your indefensible inability to explain or exemplify what it is you do mean by instead seeking to attack the position of others. But our only position here is to point out your lack of a coherent argument or even a phrase that has any meaning at all. I assume you are not familiar with the phrase "X is like pornography. It cannot be defined but we all know it when we see it". It is used (usually tongue in cheek and mockingly) by those objecting to others who wish to ban things based on common sense notions of what is right and wrong. Dude it was a joke at your expense. If it hasn't caused controversy in the past I suspect it is because others either assumed you meant something that you apparently don't (as per myself and Rhavin in this thread) or because, like you, they think it intuitively sounds meaningful and reasonable without ever really considering what it does actually mean. Give us one example of something that you consider to be objective based on "shared subjectivity" and explain what the subjective experience in question is and how it is shared. Bearing in mind that you have clearly stated that you don't mean:1) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" in the sense of my Allah example2) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" in the sense of popular agreement as per Rahvin's understanding.3) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" to be the necessarily subjective perception of objective reality.4) You don't mean Berkeley's idealism.Just tell us what you do mean. Or admit that you can't.