The subjective / objective divide

I think this is one topic which is often never thought about at any great length but is nevertheless rather important. You guys have all heard the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound" saying before. Do you know what it means?

It's a fairly basic thought experiment used to distinguish the difference between our conscious perception of something and the something itself. We all know that when a tree falls over it smashes against the ground and sends a violent series of sound waves through the air. Those sound waves are picked up by an observer's (or in this case a listener's) hearing apparatus and translated into an almighty "crack", "whoosh" and "boom" or whatever other onomatopoeia will do.

When the listener is removed from the equation there is no longer any cracks and booms, only the silent physical process of a falling tree followed by a flurry of disruptions in the air. By thinking of the falling tree without the listener we can understand that the cracks, whooshes and booms are observer dependent while the physical stuff associated with the tree is not. In short we understand that a conscious experience of sound is subjective while a falling tree is not. We understand that these subjective experiences (qualia to use the snooty philosophical term) are different to objective.... objects.

What many people often naievely do is imagine that their qualia are actual properties of the objective world. The sound waves emanating from the tree are actually the same thing as my conscious experience of sound they will say. It is the only way they know how to preserve the intuitive notiuon that trees still make what we perceive as sound in the abscence of a listener. This naieve sort of view can be termed projection. A person who is projecting takes something found in their mind (qualia) and then casts it onto the world much like a projector casts a fantastic image onto what is in reality a blank wall.

Now this is where theism comes into it. The atheist will necessarily place God into the "subjective" category. If he thought God existed objectively then he wouldn't be a very good atheist. From an atheistic point of view theists are taking their subjective idea of God and casting it onto the world. The key area of interest here for me is whether or not this is symptomatic of a general tendency to project. So I ask any and all atheistic users to please look at the following list and decide whether or not the items listed are only subjective or if they also exist in the observer independent objective world.

Just a small caution before you take a look at the list. Do not confuse a qualia with the thing that it references. In the tree example no-one (hopefully) is denying the existence of objective sound waves, just the existence of objective sound. Similarly when you ask yourself if, say, colour exists objectively, do not confuse redness with particular wavelength of light that it tends to reference. With that in mind here we go. How many of these things are merely subjective and do not exist unless in the mind of an observer?

1. God (well this one is a bit of a no brainer for an atheist).

2. Moral, prescriptive judgements (if you think any at all are not merely subjective please answer no).

3. Love

4. Beauty and aesthetics (what is it they say about the eye of the beholder?)

5. Knowledge

6. The colour red

7. The revolting smell of faeces

8. The sweet taste of a sugary soda

9. The sound of a falling tree

10. The sharp pain of a pin in your backside

11. Numbers

12. The entire objective world (think Descartes' brain in a vat or something similar to the matrix).

Well that's about all that I can come up with for now. Please tally up your votes (remember you're counting the number of things that are merely subjective, that do not exist without a mind. If you have a very low number then you're likely to be a naieve projectionist. If you have a very high number then you've probably thought about this subject in a realistic philosophical way. If you have a score of zero then you shouldn't have taken the test because it was meant for atheists only. The lowest possible score for an atheist is one. If you're a twelve then you're what is known as a solipsist and should probably be doing something other than sitting in front of an imaginary computer and stretching scepticism to absurd proportions.

If you're a theist and you want to vote please head over to the Christian Union where I'll have the same topic up and open for believers.

By the way I'm going to be answering these myself with a full justification for each later on. Before that though I want to see how everyone answers to confirm or falsify my suspicion that theists have more of a tendency to be projectionists than atheists.

1. God (well this one is a bit of a no brainer for an atheist).

Neither objective or subjective as subjective implies that God exists for some people, but not all. God does not exist, no matter how many people believe in him. He can though, be objectively defined as definitions can refer to something and that is the case of God. Now whether definitions can actually apply to any being is a different subject entirely and thus why God can't exist, as his capabilities fall outside of the spectrum of what is possible.

2. Moral, prescriptive judgements (if you think any at all are not merely subjective please answer no).

Objective. Moral judgements can be defined as the measurement of an object's success. For example, if a shooter is accurate, that shooter is good at shooting. Even though it takes a mind to make the judgement, it does not mean measurements are still existent.

3. Love

4. Beauty and aesthetics (what is it they say about the eye of the beholder?)

Objective. A rainbow is beautiful regardless of whether there is a person to observe it or not. I will let Ayn Rand explain in detail:

Beauty is a sense of harmony. Whether it's an image, a human face, a body, or a sunset, take the object which you call beautiful, as a unit [and ask yourself]: what parts is it made up of, what are its constituent elements, and are they all harmonious? If they are, the result is beautiful. If there are contradictions and clashes, the result is marred or positively ugly.

For instance, the simplest example would be a human face. You know what features belong in a human face. Well, if the face is lopsided, [with a] very indefinite jawline, very small eyes, beautiful mouth, and a long nose, you would have to say that's not a beautiful face. But if all these features are harmoniously integrated, if they all fit your view of the importance of all these features on a human face, then that face is beautiful.

In this respect, a good example would be the beauty of different races of people. For instance, the black face, or an Oriental face, is built on a different standard, and therefore what would be beautiful on a white face will not be beautiful for them (or vice-versa), because there is a certain racial standard of features by which you judge which features, which face, in that cIassification is harmonious or distorted.

That's in regard to human beauty. In regard to a sunset, for instance, or a landscape, you will regard it as beautiful if all the colors complement each other, or go well together, or are dramatic together. And you will call it ugly if it is a bad rainy afternoon, and the sky isn't exactly pink nor exactly gray, but sort of "modern."

Now since this is an objective definition of beauty, there of course can be universal standards of beauty—provided you define the terms of what objects you are going to cIassify as beautiful and what you take as the ideal harmonious relationship of the elements of that particular object. To say, ""It's in the eyes of the beholder"—that, of course, would be pure subjectivism, if taken literally. It isn't [a matter of] what you, for unknown reasons, decide to regard as beautiful. It is true, of course, that if there were no valuers, then nothing could be valued as beautiful or ugly, because values are created by the observing consciousness—but they are created by a standard based on reality. So here the issue is: values, including beauty, have to be judged as objective, not subjective or intrinsic.

The problem here is that measuring beauty is not a simple task, nor would I consider myself proficient at it as it requires rationality.

5. Knowledge

6. The colour red

Objective. Blood is red regardless of who's observing it.

7. The revolting smell of faeces

Objective.

8. The sweet taste of a sugary soda

Objective

9. The sound of a falling tree

Objective. This is the easiest one to debate as there is no question that a tree makes a sound regardless of whether or not one hears it.

10. The sharp pain of a pin in your backside

Objective. The pain can be measured by the damage performed on the body and the emotional impact on the brain. Of course, this would require some advanced thinking or technology to translate the emotional impact of the brain into logical terms.

11. Numbers

Objective.

12. The entire objective world (think Descartes' brain in a vat or something similar to the matrix).

Objective, by definition.

Essentially, everything that which exists is objective because it can be measured. Measurements are true objectively regardless of whether or not someone measures it. An inch-long worm is still an inch with or without an observer. If it cannot be measured quantified, or analyzed in any way, it cannot be objective. The difficulty is agreeing with which units, or values, of measurement we should use.

My final score is a 0 as I did not define any item as subjective, although I said that God isn't objective so if you want to consider that a 1, so be it. Also, just because someone might say love is subjective, doesn't mean they think it doesn't exist, which is why I think an atheist cannot answer the first item correctly.

1. God (well this one is a bit of a no brainer for an atheist).

Subjective. Every person I've ever seen who professes to know God has reached that conclusion by wanting comfort instead of knowledge. They convince themselves that they absolutely must be correct; ignoring facts is often used to try to strengthen their belief.

2. Moral, prescriptive judgements (if you think any at all are not merely subjective please answer no).

I would say it's a mix of both, but for the sake of being clear, I will say subjective.

3. Love

Objective. We love different things, but I think it's safe to assume that people like being happy and they don't like to suffer. Since love is enjoyable to feel, I would say that we as humans love to feel love. :P

4. Beauty and aesthetics (what is it they say about the eye of the beholder?)

Subjective. Visual art is a good example of this; some paintings are just random scribbles to me, but others are enthralled by them.

5. Knowledge

Objective. Try to go up to a math teacher and convince him/her that answers to mathematical equations are subjective. :P

6. The colour red

Subjective, because there are color blind people who have no concept of it.

7. The revolting smell of faeces

Subjective. There are some sexual fetishes that involve feces; and I assume that the people who participate enjoy the smell of it.

8. The sweet taste of a sugary soda

Subjective. Taste buds can be skewed by smoking.

9. The sound of a falling tree

Objective. Sound waves have been proven to exist.

10. The sharp pain of a pin in your backside

Objective. Feeling pain is one of the emotions that humans naturally experience.

11. Numbers

Objective (see my answer for #5)

12. The entire objective world (think Descartes' brain in a vat or something similar to the matrix).

Objective. I feel sorry for whoever says "subjective" to this.

My grand total is 6.

Brilliant post! Wouldn't the test be to see if there could be a possible subjective difference of perception for these things?

1. God (well this one is a bit of a no brainer for an atheist).

There are many Gods and many perceptions of them, so deffo Subjective

2. Moral, prescriptive judgements (if you think any at all are not merely subjective please answer no).

Different societies have different moral outlooks and value judgements, so these would be objective for those societies. But overall, from both within those societies and between morally disparate societies, there would be subjective evaluations of these judgements.

3. Love

There are many sorts of Love and many emotions and feelings that can be associated with it which change between people that someone loves. So these feelings must only be Subjective feelings.

4. Beauty and aesthetics (what is it they say about the eye of the beholder?)

There are distinct schools of thought - and plenty of variations within those schools that aesthetics must be a Subjective analysis. I find talk of "harmony" distracting, since harmony is just as subjective an analysis as aesthetics are. For example, some people think "Feng Shui" seeks to objectively understand harmony, while others think its the art of stealing money from interior-design customers!

5. Knowledge

Individual nuggets of knowledge or ideas could be objectified so that a subjective evaluation of an idea might come across consistently to all. But people can either reject ideas and knowledge or distort them, so even ideas would be fundamentally subjective. If you're talking about knowledge as a whole, people have different capacities for learning, different experiences of life and develop their own mechanisms for thinking. The very nature of knowledge being a relative set of models of understanding makes knowledge a rather subjective thing.

6. The colour red

People can experience red differently (i.e. 1 in 10 men are colour-blind), so the perception of red is a subjective one. There are standards for colour, but there are many of them and most are not all as precise as the variations in colour that humans can see). I read a remarkable article recently about a man who had an operation to removea layer from the surface of his eye, after which he could perceive ultra-violet light. - Apparently it is like having a disco "black light" switched on all the time, casting things in a purple haze with vivid day-glo colours popping out (from flowers and such) in the sunlight.

7. The revolting smell of faeces

As with sight, There are some humans with no or limited senses of smell. My old biology school teacher told us he had no sense of smell, so from then on in, the most common question asked of him in the biology lab every lesson was "Sir, can you smell gas?" Also, I've heard some Teutonic peoples actually get turned on by this smell. Thank goodness for subjectivity on this one!

8. The sweet taste of a sugary soda

Do you like Coke or Diet Coke? I like Coke and hate diet coke, so find some grounds for subjectivity here. I'm sure Coca-Cola does too, else they wouldn't offer us a choice. The people who dislike Coke will also have a valid subjective response. The taste of something is mostly registered by its smell, so taste and smell go together.

9. The sound of a falling tree

No doubt pressure waves get created in the air molecules and affect the surrounding environment - including any present ear drums. If and how we perceive the sound may vary between people. The frequency range of sound registered would vary across listeners, for example. Even peoples' ear shape affects how they hear stuff. More generally though. people may not identify the sound as a falling tree, so this is another subjective conscious perception, despite objective analysis of the physical characteristics of sound.

10. The sharp pain of a pin in your backside

One thing I have noticed (not though my own doing I must add) is how variously people react to pain, depending on the situation and their personalities. This is obviously a subjective construct for me.

11. Numbers

I think this is the toughest one to answer and the one that most nearly approaches objectivity for an answer. Even though people can conceive of mathematics differently, the results they get and the mathematical expressions they create to express their results are governed by an absolute objective system that does seem independent of any subjective interpretation. So perhaps objective, but still slightly subjective, since mathematicians think about mathematical concepts and models in different ways.

12. The entire objective world (think Descartes' brain in a vat or something similar to the matrix).

This one is also tough to answer, since I don't really know how far rationalism can go. Is it like our only access to any objectivity must be a personal and subjective one? I think we do live in an objective world, but can only access that objectivity via our own personal subjective filters.

10/12 - 12/12 scored

What about you, Domatron?

What about you, Domatron?RationalAtheist

I'm an 11.

The polls up now guys so vote away. Just before you do though please be careful to read this warning again:

Do not confuse a qualia with the thing that it references. In the tree example no-one (hopefully) is denying the existence of objective sound waves, just the existence of objective sound. Similarly when you ask yourself if, say, colour exists objectively, do not confuse redness with particular wavelength of light that it tends to reference.

I only mention this because drac said that sound is objective because sound waves have been proven to exist. Remember guys, in the case of perceptions such as sound, sight, taste etc we're talking about qualia, not the phenomena which qualia are representative of.

Wouldn't the test be to see if there could be a possible subjective difference of perception for these things?

RationalAtheist

That's a good way to test it. You could also reflect on the question, "If there were no observers would this still exist". If you properly differentiate between your perception of something and the something itself this question makes thinking about this stuff a lot easier.

12. The entire objective world (think Descartes' brain in a vat or something similar to the matrix).

This one is also tough to answer, since I don't really know how far rationalism can go. Is it like our only access to any objectivity must be a personal and subjective one? I think we do live in an objective world, but can only access that objectivity via our own personal subjective filters.

RationalAtheist

You're on the ball there RA. We do indeed perceive the world through subjective filters and what we end up with is a mental representation of our objective surroundings. In some cases the representation is not exactly accurate but for the most part our senses correspond to what is out there. The point is, that there is something out there and we are priveleged enough to have a conscious model that can be said to be about that something.

1. God (well this one is a bit of a no brainer for an atheist).

If you are referring to an actual being, I would say god probably does not exist. If you are referring to an experience or some sort of a priori knowledge of god, then I would say that that is a subjective experience.   

2. Moral, prescriptive judgements (if you think any at all are not merely subjective please answer no).

They are subjective, and largely dependent on the social positions those casting judgement and those being judged. (Or those making the moral demands and their intended audience) 

3. Love

If you mean that a behaviour or emotion exists that we call "love" then, yes that does exist objectively.

4. Beauty and aesthetics (what is it they say about the eye of the beholder?)

 It seems subjective to me.

5. Knowledge

If you mean "truth" then, by its nature, it is objective. 

6. The colour red

Electromagnetic energy in the 630-740nm range objectively exists, but can be experienced differently by varying organisms. Tetrachromates would see it differently than trichromates and since there is no way of describing "red" there is no way of knowing if the experience varies from person to person, even in the same species. I.E. the way I experience red might not be the same as the way you do. So, while the physical process that evokes the experience is objective, the experiences itself is not.   

7. The revolting smell of faeces

Same as above. Dogs seem to rather enjoy the odor. And, as Mr Myers so eloquently put it "Everyone lover their own brand." 

8. The sweet taste of a sugary soda

Again, its the same

9. The sound of a falling tree

IBID

10. The sharp pain of a pin in your backside

Subjective, some people tolorate pain better than others

11. Numbers

You mean integers? Like 1. 2. 3.? Well there they are. Seems fairly objective to me. 

12. The entire objective world (think Descartes' brain in a vat or something similar to the matrix).

Yep, we've developed a way to describe the world objectively, we call it science. Of course that does rely on the assumption that any knowledge gained is provisional. 

Subjective.

2. Moral, prescriptive judgements (if you think any at all are not merely subjective please answer no).

Subjective.

3. Love

Subjective

4. Beauty and aesthetics (what is it they say about the eye of the beholder?)

Now this one is a problem. I would say subjective but then that would mean there are no universal standards of beauty which is not true. "Nobody is ugly it's all subjective" is an argument I dont like at all. However beauty is definitely not objective so I have to say semi-subjective here.

5. Knowledge

Objective.

6. The colour red

Subjective.

7. The revolting smell of faeces

Subjective

8. The sweet taste of a sugary soda

Subjective

9. The sound of a falling tree

Subjective

10. The sharp pain of a pin in your backside

Subjective

11. Numbers

Objective

12. The entire objective world (think Descartes' brain in a vat or something similar to the matrix).

Objective

8.5 out of 12 so I am in the 6-9 category. But why exactly has the 10-11 given more amount of thought? It's assuming that the more you think the more subjective will one percieve things? I dont think I agree with that...

I'm not an atheist, so I won't respond to the poll, but I might as well respond anyway. 

1. God

Objective; if he/she/it exists at all, then obviously he/she/it exists external to humans.

2. Moral, prescriptive judgements

Subjective; there is no evidence that one can present that could even theoretically prove a prescriptive statement true in an objective fashion to one who disagrees.

3. Love

Indeterminate; this depends on whether "love" is defined as the physical chemicals produced in one's body that induce a mental sensation, or as that sensation itself.

4. Beauty and aesthetics

Subjective; similar to prescriptive statements, there is no evidence that one can present that could even theoretically prove a statement about beauty or aesthetics true in an objective fashion to one who disagrees. 

5. Knowledge

I can see arguments for both:

Subjective; at its heart, all knowledge is filtered through our senses, which may very well be imperfect, and we may "know" something that is not in fact true.

or

Objective; if anything exists, it exists external to our faulty senses, so therefore if we define "knowledge" as that which is strictly true about the universe, then it remains true about the universe absent any observation. 

6. The colour red

Indeterminate; this depends on whether "red" is defined as the property of reflecting only that electromagnetic radiation that stimulates our retinas to create a particular sensation, or as that sensation itself.

7. The revolting smell of faeces

Indeterminate; this depends on whether "revolting smell" is defined as the property of giving off gaseous particles that stimulate our nasal cavities to create a particular sensation, or as that sensation itself. 

8. The sweet taste of a sugary soda

Indeterminate; this depends on whether "sweet taste" is defined as the property of containing chemicals that stimulate taste buds on contact to create a particular sensation, or as that sensation itself. 

9. The sound of a falling tree

Indeterminate; this depends on whether "sound" is defined as the disturbance of air molecules that stimulates one's ear drum on contact to create a particular sensation, or as that sensation itself. 

10. The sharp pain of a pin in your backside

Indeterminate; this depends on whether "sharp pain" is defined as the nerve impulses on contact that travel to the brain and stimulate it to create a particular sensation, or as that sensation itself. 

11. Numbers

Indeterminate; this depends on whether one views numbers as a formalized representation of physical properties of the objective world, or rather as an abstract construct that happens to have an applicability to the objective world.

12. The entire objective world (think Descartes' brain in a vat or something similar to the matrix).

Objective; if we're brains in a vat, then there still exists a world in which they exist, and there is still a set and fixed world that is imparted into that brain's capability of sensation detection.

---------------

So by my count, that's 2 objective, 2 subjective, 1 with arguments in either direction, and 7 indeterminate.

CIassify that. :P 

You're on the ball there RA. We do indeed perceive the world through subjective filters and what we end up with is a mental representation of our objective surroundings. In some cases the representation is not exactly accurate but for the most part our senses correspond to what is out there. The point is, that there issomething out there and we are priveleged enough to have a conscious model that can be said to be about that something.domatron23

But do we though?...

I've been drawn to Martin Heidegger, who talked about "Dasein" (he was a German) relating to the states of being, so that the conscious models we develop themselves change or vary. Heidegger I think wanted to re-define "being" as it related to existentialism. States of Dasein could be heightened states like "Angst" (with a particular German translation relating to spiritual anguish, rather than physical fear), or the drudgery of daily life ("Zuhandende"), for example. So consciousness has more than one form of subjectivity.

Heidegger further reasoned that "phenomenology" (or the science of consciousness and its objects) is not a descriptive analysis of consciousness, but a method of reducing and understanding various modes of consciousness, or "Dasein".

Do you think a 12 score would automatically make you a soliplist, or is there some other salvation for subjectivists?