Usefulness of Subjective vs. Objective Categorization

[MrLovingKindness]

In terms of trying to create accurate maps/models of reality, I don't see how the subjective vs. objective dichotomy is useful. If the goal is to create models which predict future events, then I think it is more useful to consider who has what information when and with what level of confidence.For example, if I tell Fred I flipped a coin, and I look at it, and it is heads, but don't show it to Fred, then I can say, "I just flipped heads," and that is a true assertion about the state of the physical universe. About that assertion, I am 100% confident that is true. To Fred, however, without any other information, the assertion that I just flipped heads is 50% likely to be true, assuming he saw me flip the coin but did not see the result. If I then show him the coin, then he too can say with 100% confidence that I flipped heads. On the other hand, if I put the coin in my pocket and never show it to him, then I maintain in my mind (subjectively) a true assertion about the universe at a specific point in the past, that is that I flipped a heads at such-and-such a place and time.Using current brain scanning technology it is possible to determine whether or not I am lying with some degree of confidence. I am not sure what the confidence is in the technology currently, but given that the memory of the flipped heads is a specific configuration of neurons in my brain, even if it is not possible now, it certainly should be possible, at least in theory, to make the outcome of the coin toss an objective fact.Given the above example, it seems that what at one time is subjective, can be made objective at some other time, so I am not sure how that distinction would help with my mapping of reality. Thoughts, comments, and criticisms welcome.

[Culain]

The fact of whether something is subjective or objective is not dependent on the individual actors. What they remember or how they tell a specific memory does not change inherantly whether it is objective or not. There is an objective result of the coin toss. There is an objective use of the memory to remember the result of the coin toss, while that memory may be incorrect it is an objective use of memory to attempt to remember an objective event.

 

This topic reminds me of schrodiners cat

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

 

Basically there is a cat in a box that at any random point in time could die, thus the cat is considered both dead and alive.

 

The real foundational truth is that regardless of the knowledge of the individual actors, the cat is either dead or alive inside the box and not objectively both.

[MrLovingKindness]

The fact of whether something is subjective or objective is not dependent on the individual actors. What they remember or how they tell a specific memory does not change inherantly whether it is objective or not. There is an objective result of the coin toss. There is an objective use of the memory to remember the result of the coin toss, while that memory may be incorrect it is an objective use of memory to attempt to remember an objective event.

 

This topic reminds me of schrodiners cat

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

 

Basically there is a cat in a box that at any random point in time could die, thus the cat is considered both dead and alive.

 

The real foundational truth is that regardless of the knowledge of the individual actors, the cat is either dead or alive inside the box and not objectively both.

 

I am glad you brought up Schroedinger's cat. In the case of the cat, I am not an expert in QM, but I believe the consensus among those experts is that the cat does actually exist in a state of either dead or alive prior to observation, because the cat is so large that its quantum superposition of both dead and alive collapses immediately due to it's interaction with other matter in the box, so the cat does actually exist in either a dead or alive state prior to being observed. This is what is called uncertainty due to ignorance. On the other hand, there are QM state superpositions which actually have no definite state prior to observation and those states have inherent uncertainty, not from lack of information. This is one reason why it is difficult to build a quantum computer; the qubits must be kept isolated from the environment (hence supercooling is often employed) in order to prevent their state superpositions from decohering (collapsing).

 

Back to the original topic, please give me an example of a subjective event.

[Culain]

There are no subjective events. Subjective is a state of preference. (I said 'objective event' to push the point that all events are objective, sorry if I confused you here.)

 

An event is not a preference, but a result.

 

An event can be subjectively enjoyable, but an event in itself can not be subjective.

---

 

I'll admit that I had to look into the basics of what quantum superposition is in order to continue,

 

  "Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics)..."

 

This sounds like complete insanity to me, or rather it is. If something can not be measured it can not be proven. It's possible that it is a lack of understanding on my part.

 

Perhaps you can make a simple and understanding case but I doubt it as I've been trying to understand the logic of how: when you stop observing something that's when it's particles could change at some point in time,

 

 I will say this though, this would be a very interesting topic to call into the show with as it would challenge a lot of the arguments which Stefan puts forth and if you believe you have an understanding of quantum physics/ super position than I urge you to call into the show instead of wasting your time trying to convince me.

[MrLovingKindness]

The state of preference is an event with finite duration, at a specific range in time, in a specific brain. If there are no subjective events, then states of preference are also not subjective.The EPR experiment shows that superposition of states have no state in actuality prior to observation.http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/EPR/Compare this to a coin flip. While it is in the air, it has no state of heads or tails. This is analogous to superposition. The "observation" occurs when the coin lands. It then has an actual state of either heads or tails. After I have flipped the coin, it has an actual state, which I can verify with 100% accuracy (this is a second observation). If you do not see the coin outcome, then from your perspective the coin has a 50/50 chance of being in the state heads or tails, but your assignment of probability is due to your lack of information (uncertainty due to ignorance), rather than an indeterminant state of the coin itself (intrinsic uncertainty).My purpose for this topic is to convince myself that I have no use for the terms objective and subjective. The method by which I am attempting to convince myself is to submit the hypothesis of the uselessness of subjective vs. objective categorization to a group of smart people who might find this hypothesis interesting. I am hopeful that if there could be some utility to me in this categorization, someone will convince me of that.I am a slow thinker, so I suspect a call with me on this topic would not be all that interesting.

[cynicist]

In terms of trying to create accurate maps/models of reality, I don't see how the subjective vs. objective dichotomy is useful.

 

I think being able to tell the difference between truth and opinion is useful if you are trying to gain an accurate understanding of reality.

[MrLovingKindness]

I think being able to tell the difference between truth and opinion is useful if you are trying to gain an accurate understanding of reality.

Ok. How do I use objective vs. subjective categorization to distinguish truth from opinion? Please give an example.

[cynicist]

Objective refers to that which exists independently of an observer. Subjective refers to that which exists in the mind of a person (subject) like feelings/thoughts/opinions. So if someone says that it feels like it is going to rain, for example, I know that they are describing their experience rather than something that is objectively true. If I'm interested in the truth then I would look at objective measurements of the weather and predictions based on that data when I'm deciding whether I need an umbrella or not. 

For example, if I tell Fred I flipped a coin, and I look at it, and it is heads, but don't show it to Fred, then I can say, "I just flipped heads," and that is a true assertion about the state of the physical universe. About that assertion, I am 100% confident that is true. To Fred, however, without any other information, the assertion that I just flipped heads is 50% likely to be true, assuming he saw me flip the coin but did not see the result. If I then show him the coin, then he too can say with 100% confidence that I flipped heads. On the other hand, if I put the coin in my pocket and never show it to him, then I maintain in my mind (subjectively) a true assertion about the universe at a specific point in the past, that is that I flipped a heads at such-and-such a place and time.

 

And to go into your example specifically, an assertion is a declaration of a fact without evidence to support it. Once an assertion is true it's not an assertion anymore, it's a fact. The coin landed on heads whether Fred sees it or not. Since he can't see it all he has is your assertion that it has, but that doesn't change what happened in reality. The coin flip and it's result is objective, even if Fred never knows what it is and you do. 

 

Take another example, me showing a baby a ball and then hiding it behind my back. To the baby it has disappeared (subjectively it appears to no longer exist) but in reality the ball has just been hidden from view. Objectively, the ball is no longer in the same position that it was before. If I forget that I'm holding the ball behind my back and no longer know where it is myself I may think that it has ceased to exist as well, but that does not change whether the ball exists or not since that event occurred in material reality and not simply in my mind.

[MrLovingKindness]

Robert, thank you for your response.  As you will see below, I find this topic very interesting. Because I don’t know the right way to quote you inline, I will do that by indenting quotes from you.

Objective refers to that which exists independently of an observer.

Ok. Can you give me an example of something which exists independently of an observer?

Subjective refers to that which exists in the mind of a person (subject) like feelings/thoughts/opinions.

I would call feelings and thoughts simply facts about the state of a person’s mind. Those thoughts and feelings exist as neuronal patterns. If I say “I am having thoughts about answering your post now”, it is a true assertion about the state of the universe. There is evidence for the truth of that assertion which can be plainly seen, because I am typing a response to you which would not be possible without the thoughts about it. If I have the thought, “a circle is a figure in a plane consisting of all the points equidistant from a fixed point”, is that thought subjective?

I didn’t address “opinions”, because I am not sure what you mean by that term. Are opinions synonymous with preferences?

So if someone says that it feels like it is going to rain, for example, I know that they are describing their experience rather than something that is objectively true.

So the assertion, “Fred (someone) feels like it is going to rain,” is true? I know Fred is describing something occurring in his mind from the word “feels”. What new specificity would be introduced by also categorizing it as subjective? How would using subjective in this case allow me to create a more accurate map of the situation, one with greater explanatory or predictive power?

If I'm interested in the truth then I would look at objective measurements of the weather and predictions based on that data when I'm deciding whether I need an umbrella or not. 

Ok. Let’s unpack this a bit. Here are two statements:

• “Fred feels like it is going to rain.”
• “Fred feeling like it is going to rain is evidence supporting the state of rain in the near future.”

I think we agree the first one is true, but so might the second one. Maybe I have known Fred for 20 years, and I have kept careful statistical evidence comparing his weather predictions to the predictions of the National Weather Service (NWS). If I see in the statistical data that his predictions are correct more often than NWS, then when Fred’s weather prediction conflicts with that of NWS, I should believe Fred over NWS. In this case, I should base my expectation of the need for an umbrella on the subjective model over the objective one. Do you agree? If not, why not?

And to go into your example specifically, an assertion is a declaration of a fact without evidence to support it.

Your definition is not one that a mathematician would use. http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/geroch-math-assertions.pdf

To quote from the above paper, “An assertion is a precise, unambiguous, mathematical statement to the effect that something is true.”

Once an assertion is true it's not an assertion anymore, it's a fact.

An assertion is either true or false at the time of the asserting. If later evidence is found to support the assertion being true, we can call the assertion a fact, but it is also still an assertion, but it is a true assertion rather than a false one. It is still an assertion because, it is still “a precise, unambiguous, mathematical statement to the effect that something is true,” even after it is found to be true.

The coin landed on heads whether Fred sees it or not. Since he can't see it all he has is your assertion that it has, but that doesn't change what happened in reality. The coin flip and it's result is objective, even if Fred never knows what it is and you do.

Ok. Let’s say I’m Fred and I’m trying to understand what’s going on in the world. From Fred’s perspective, what difference does it make whether he calls the result “objective”? From Fred’s perspective, it could all be in the tosser’s brain, and I think what you would call “subjective”. Does calling it subjective or objective help me or Fred make any better predictions about the state of reality in this example?

Take another example, me showing a baby a ball and then hiding it behind my back. To the baby it has disappeared (subjectively it appears to no longer exist) but in reality the ball has just been hidden from view. Objectively, the ball is no longer in the same position that it was before. If I forget that I'm holding the ball behind my back and no longer know where it is myself I may think that it has ceased to exist as well, but that does not change whether the ball exists or not since that event occurred in material reality and not simply in my mind.

If I take the words objective and subjective out of the above paragraph, does the meaning change in any way that some observer somewhere can tell? Is there any loss of explanatory or predictive statements I might not be able to make about the above scenario if I don’t use the categories subjective and objective? If not, then I don’t see any use for the words “subjective” and “objective”. On the contrary, including words that add no predictive or explanatory power only can increase the possibility of confusion.

Counter arguments are welcome.

[Mike Larson]

I think that the words "subjective" and "objective" are useful as defined by the dictionary...

 

Subjective: relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind.

Objective: existing outside of the mind.

 

I think the confusion occurs when you try to assign truth value to either of the terms. When I describe an object subjectively, I'm not making a claim about the object, but rather I am making a claim about how I experience the object, with the full recognition that another person may experience it differently. My subjective claim is not necessarily true or false--that would depend on how accurately my claim represents my true experience. If I make an objective claim, it is not necessarily true or false--that would depend on how accurately my claim describes the object... and my claim could then be validated or invalidated by someone else, independent of my mind.

 

MrLovingKindness, I agree with you in the sense that the words "subjective" and "objective" are almost always used in a way that is either inappropriate or in a way that makes them superfluous. When someone says that their claim is "objective" with the implication that what they are saying is true, then they are misusing the word. When someone says that their claim is "objective", the only information they are giving you is that their claim is about an object, itself, rather than their experience of the object. The claim may be true or false. The implication that objective = true is a misuse of the word, in my opinion. And when someone says that "their subjective experience of an object is X", then they are using the word "subjective" superfluously. They should just say that "their experience of an object is X". The word "subjective" adds nothing in this case.

 

Here are some examples of subjective claims (and this statement is an example of a meaningful way to use the word "subjective"):

- I like apples.

- the wind is bothering me.

 

Here are some examples of objective claims:

- Apples grow on trees.

- the wind is blowing at an average rate of 20mph at this location.

 

None of these claims are necessarily true or false, but I think that categorizing them as subjective or objective can be useful.

[cynicist]

I would call feelings and thoughts simply facts about the state of a person’s mind. Those thoughts and feelings exist as neuronal patterns. If I say “I am having thoughts about answering your post now”, it is a true assertion about the state of the universe. There is evidence for the truth of that assertion which can be plainly seen, because I am typing a response to you which would not be possible without the thoughts about it.

 

How do you verify someone's thoughts or feelings? It's safe to assume that you thought about responding to me before you made the actual response, but I have no way of actually proving what you were thinking. So you can't call them facts.

 

Your definition is not one that a mathematician would use. http://strangebeauti...-assertions.pdf

To quote from the above paper, “An assertion is a precise, unambiguous, mathematical statement to the effect that something is true.”

 

And in computer programming an assertion is a true-false statement used to indicate an error, but we're not talking about mathematics or programming, are we? 

 

If I take the words objective and subjective out of the above paragraph, does the meaning change in any way that some observer somewhere can tell? Is there any loss of explanatory or predictive statements I might not be able to make about the above scenario if I don’t use the categories subjective and objective? If not, then I don’t see any use for the words “subjective” and “objective”. On the contrary, including words that add no predictive or explanatory power only can increase the possibility of confusion.

 

My mistake, I thought you were uncertain about how the distinction is useful. It sounds more like you just don't prefer to use the words, is that right? In that case don't use them. I think they remove ambiguity, and I find that helpful.

 

I think the confusion occurs when you try to assign truth value to either of the terms. When I describe an object subjectively, I'm not making a claim about the object, but rather I am making a claim about how I experience the object, with the full recognition that another person may experience it differently. My subjective claim is not necessarily true or false--that would depend on how accurately my claim represents my true experience. If I make an objective claim, it is not necessarily true or false--that would depend on how accurately my claim describes the object... and my claim could then be validated or invalidated by someone else, independent of my mind.

 

They are useful when talking about truth because we know that one is verifiable and the other is not.

[MrLovingKindness]

@Robert, this is how my debate with you seems from my perspective.

 

I flip a coin, look at the result, and then put the coin in my pocket, and don't show it to Robert. The outcome was heads. I then say out loud in the presence of Robert. "I just flipped heads on a coin." Robert says, "no you didn't. You can't prove it to me, and if you can't prove it to me it didn't happen." My response is that it did happen. I did verify it, and just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

 

I don't wish to mischaracterize you though, so I will ask "is it your position that a statement must be verifiable by you personally (at least in theory) in order to be true?"

[MrLovingKindness]

Mike, I completely agree with everything in your post, and I think, especially the excerpt from your post below, describes more clearly what I have been trying to demonstrate through counter examples. Thank you.

 

"subjective" and "objective" are almost always used in a way that is either inappropriate or in a way that makes them superfluous. When someone says that their claim is "objective" with the implication that what they are saying is true, then they are misusing the word. When someone says that their claim is "objective", the only information they are giving you is that their claim is about an object, itself, rather than their experience of the object. The claim may be true or false. The implication that objective = true is a misuse of the word, in my opinion. And when someone says that "their subjective experience of an object is X", then they are using the word "subjective" superfluously. They should just say that "their experience of an object is X". The word "subjective" adds nothing in this case.

[cynicist]

@Robert, this is how my debate with you seems from my perspective.

 

I flip a coin, look at the result, and then put the coin in my pocket, and don't show it to Robert. The outcome was heads. I then say out loud in the presence of Robert. "I just flipped heads on a coin." Robert says, "no you didn't. You can't prove it to me, and if you can't prove it to me it didn't happen." My response is that it did happen. I did verify it, and just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

 

I don't wish to mischaracterize you though, so I will ask "is it your position that a statement must be verifiable by you personally (at least in theory) in order to be true?"

 

Quoting myself here from earlier in the thread,

 

The coin landed on heads whether Fred sees it or not. Since he can't see it all he has is your assertion that it has, but that doesn't change what happened in reality.

 

In other words, you can't prove to Fred what happened if you never showed him the result of the toss, but the result happened regardless.

[Pepin]

This sounds like complete insanity to me, or rather it is. If something can not be measured it can not be proven. It's possible that it is a lack of understanding on my part.

 

Perhaps you can make a simple and understanding case but I doubt it as I've been trying to understand the logic of how: when you stop observing something that's when it's particles could change at some point in time,

 

 I will say this though, this would be a very interesting topic to call into the show with as it would challenge a lot of the arguments which Stefan puts forth and if you believe you have an understanding of quantum physics/ super position than I urge you to call into the show instead of wasting your time trying to convince me.

 

To provide some clarification, there is quantum theory and there is quantum mechanics. The mechanics is essentially pure math, and the theory is an explanation of what the math is describing. There are many different theories which are well justified in their view, but of course potentially wrong. The claim that an electron is in a superposition of states until observed is congruent with the math, but can also be explained in a different manner. I don't mean to say that the theories are loads of garbage and ought to be ignored, the theories are quite valuable, but rather to view the theories as an explanation of experimental results.

 

Really, you have to understand the math and the experiments to get why physicists make statements like "the spin of an electron is up and down until measured", otherwise it just sounds like assertions. I can provide some resources if you are interested in understanding this, it is quite interesting in my opinion, but otherwise you are just going to have to accept these statements on the fact that quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory ever.

 

Also, the OP is really making an argument in regard to QM or QT.

[MFK]

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

 

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

 

Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer.

 

Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe. (This is the “mixed,” moderate or middle-of-the-road version of subjectivism. Pure or “extreme” subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature.)

[Pepin]

I was reading the above post and thinking, "wow, this poster seem pretty influenced by Rand", and about half way through I realized it was Rand. MFK, I would include in your post the fact that you are quoting Ayn Rand, just to avoid confusion.

[TDB]

I don't see how the subjective vs. objective dichotomy is useful.

Well then, do not use it.

Given the above example, it seems that what at one time is subjective, can be made objective at some other time, so I am not sure how that distinction would help with my mapping of reality. Thoughts, comments, and criticisms welcome.

If you want to map reality, first reality should exist.

[MrLovingKindness]

Quoting myself here from earlier in the thread,

 

 

In other words, you can't prove to Fred what happened if you never showed him the result of the toss, but the result happened regardless.

But earlier in the thread you said,

"...I have no way of actually proving what you were thinking. So you can't call them facts."

which appears to contradict what you are saying above.

The claim that an electron is in a superposition of states until observed is congruent with the math, but can also be explained in a different manner.

The claim is consistent with the math and the experimental results. I am aware of other interpretations of collapse of states, but not superposition. Otherwise, I generally agree with you post.

@MFK Thank you for the post. What I gather then is that there is a useful distinction between subjective and objective, just that many people don't use it.

[cynicist]

But earlier in the thread you said,

"...I have no way of actually proving what you were thinking. So you can't call them facts."

which appears to contradict what you are saying above.

 

How?

 

The coin toss is something that is observable, thoughts and feelings are not. (the former is empirical, the latter can't be)

[Kevin Beal]

Objective and subjective actually describe different things depending on the context, and are important for determining things like verifiability and other things to do with philosophy and the scientific method. Since this is a forum about philosophy, that is the approach I will be taking in addressing this topic.

 

Whether or not something is objective means that it is something philosophy can do something with. Something that only is the way it is because you experienced it that way, or is your subjective preference for one thing over another is not something philosophy is concerned with, unless we are talking about epistemic truth claims (having to do with knowledge). The exception to that rule being things which are physical facts or ontological objective (having to do with physical instances).

 

Philosophy is about having logically consistent, universal and potentially moral propositions concerning the world that we live in. Whether or not you prefer the Beatles over the Rolling Stones is of no concern to philosophy. There is no requirement or benefit in universalizing this preference. In other words: it is not objectively true that the Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones. This is epistemically subjective. You know that you prefer them, but it is based entirely on your own subjective conscious experience rather than a priori or empirical facts about the world that make it so.

 

The importance of discerning objective vs subjective is to know whether or not philosophy is applicable. Should you decide to join the peace corp or continue building up your career? I don't know. There are objective facts worth considering, like the pay or the location, but ultimately the dilemma is a subjective matter with no objective answer. Knowing that means you know the very minimum about addressing the issue.

 

It goes even deeper than that though in how you approach issues. Having a preference for vanilla over chocolate is not subjective in the same sense as the value of your pen over my five dollars. The first is subjective in an epistemic sense since it deals with your knowledge of your own desires. The second is subjective regarding the actual objects themselves. There is no objective value scale regarding the pen or the five dollars. Mises proved this logically a hundred years ago (read "Human Action", seriously, amazing read).

 

Neither are things objective in the same sense. It is objectively true that paper catches fire at 451 degrees Fahrenheit, but not in the same sense that 2 + 2 equals 4, or that if A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C. The first example is ontological (to do with physical instances) and the second is epistemic (to do with knowledge). You can also make the distinction that the first is empirical and the second a priori.

 

The reason this is important is when you are equivocating between these different senses of the words "objective" and "subjective".

 

We can say nothing philosophically about the subjectivity of your preference for sharp cheddar over medium cheddar, but we can comment on the subjective values people place on objects that they trade. This is the entire basis for the science of economics, in fact. It is an epistemically objective science concerning the ontologically subjective values that people place on goods and services.

 

The way in which the value of goods (for example) are subjective, is in that they are valued the way they are depending entirely on human experience (people's desires, beliefs and perceptions concerning those goods). You cannot measure that value except insofar as you see the effects of that value. You can see the people's valuation of bitcoin relative to the dollar because of the way that they use bitcoin. Economics looks at the effects of that valuation, rather than the psychological experience of valuing a thing over another.

 

It's important to be able to point out these distinctions because it can stop progress if you get it wrong. People for the longest time said that we cannot study consciousness (cognitive science) because it's subjective. They were equivocating between subjective in the epistemic and ontological senses.

 

Another way that this equivocation shows up is in artificial intelligence research where people are developing simulations of intelligence, pattern recognition, reading an environment vs acting within it, programming with environmental context in consideration, etc. The result of this research is said to be true intelligence designed programmatically. This is not true though. It is a simulation of true intelligence. By definition, a simulation is not the same as the thing it is simulating. People are passionately and vehemently wed to the idea that it is the same thing, though, or that it might as well be. This has deeper consequences than you'd think.

 

Other ways this shows up is in free will vs determinism, or epiphenomenalism in the philosophy of mind.

 

It has enormously wide reaching consequences in philosophy. Getting this wrong means you get a lot of things wrong down the line.

[TDB]

Whether or not you prefer the Beatles over the Rolling Stones is of no concern

This is a good counterexample to the approach taken by OP. He speculated about the possibility of using brain scanning to erase the line between subjective and objective. But even if we can quantify people's subjective experiences in various dimensions, they still differ from person to person, and it seems unlikely that the distinction would lose all relevance.

Having a preference for vanilla over chocolate is not subjective in the same sense as the value of your pen over my five dollars. The first is subjective in an epistemic sense since it deals with your knowledge of your own desires. The second is subjective regarding the actual objects themselves. There is no objective value scale regarding the pen or the five dollars.

Maybe it would be simpler to point out that chocolate and vanilla are substitutes, it's not a choice made at the margin. Maybe it isn't simpler.Can OP's approach be taken far enough that we could scan your brain and predict whether you would choose chocolate or vanilla, buy the pen or not? I suppose. Kevin's point is that these choices are still subjective, even if they were predictable. For this to become objective, we would need to be able to say "You chose chocolate, but from your brain scan I can see that this was a mistake, you actually preferred vanilla." I have trouble thinking up a sci-fi scenario for that.