The Boundaries of Experience

[_Fence Sitter]

How can a person be determined to be color blind if "blue" is subjective?

How can a person be determined to be blind if what we see is entirely subjective?

When one of my LDS friends mentioned to me he was color blind, I asked him if he knew I was a descendent of Ham.

[_Simon Belmont]

How can a person be determined to be color blind if "blue" is subjective?

Blue, in the sense that it produces a certain wavelength of light or can be measured by scientific methods, is objective. The experience of blue is subjective.

How can a person be determined to be blind if what we see is entirely subjective?

Not responding to standard visual stimuli, I suspect.

How can an optometrist "measure the functions of the human eye, and determine if it falls within acceptable parameters" unless he or she takes what a person subjectively describes he is seeing and measures that against objective standards?

I am not an optometrist, so I am not aware of all methods used.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.

Intro to A Course in Miracles

Careful there Lucretia, those are words that show religion as the misty fog of illusion that it is.

Yeah! That's one of the things I love about it.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Nothing unreal exists.

Also Kiri-kin-tha's first law of metaphysics.

Oh, goody. Star Trek.

You've started a great thread here, Simon. Do you have any ideas about my quote taken in its entirety?

[_Darth J]

How can a person be determined to be color blind if "blue" is subjective?

How can a person be determined to be blind if what we see is entirely subjective?

When one of my LDS friends mentioned to me he was color blind, I asked him if he knew I was a descendent of Ham.

Was Bacon a descendant of Ham?

[_sock puppet]

How can a person be determined to be color blind if "blue" is subjective?

Blue, in the sense that it produces a certain wavelength of light or can be measured by scientific methods, is objective. The experience of blue is subjective.

How do we know that? Is that not itself the matter of conjecture?

For example, give 10 three-year-old children a sugar cookie each. Most if not all 10 will have a favorable reaction, and like the taste.

Give those same 10 three-year-old children each a piece of raw squid to eat. Most if not all 10 will promptly spit it out and try to get the residual taste out of their mouths.

So, why do they react so similarly to the same stimuli if they are each experiencing subjectively something differently?

You see, the emotional rush called the burning bosom has been felt by nearly everyone on this board. It's not subjectively different. However, you chose to interpret it in a way that your friends, family and immediate social structure would approve, that it was "the Spirit" confirming the truth to you.

Others of us may have so interpreted it at one time, but the more we reflect, the more able we are to produce the emotion on command, it becomes evident that it is just a self-induced emotion. We no longer feel the social need to continue the 'interpretation' we once placed upon it.

But has the experience been different to a substantial degree, no. Just like the group of kids liking sugar cookies, spitting out raw squid--it's pretty much the same thing.

[_Darth J]

How can a person be determined to be color blind if "blue" is subjective?

Blue, in the sense that it produces a certain wavelength of light or can be measured by scientific methods, is objective. The experience of blue is subjective.

That being the case, on what basis can we rely on subjective emotional experiences that the LDS Church conditions people to interpret as being from God as a method for determining claims of objective fact?

How can a person be determined to be blind if what we see is entirely subjective?

Not responding to standard visual stimuli, I suspect.

So a person's subjective perception can be objectively wrong, can't it?

How can an optometrist "measure the functions of the human eye, and determine if it falls within acceptable parameters" unless he or she takes what a person subjectively describes he is seeing and measures that against objective standards?

I am not an optometrist, so I am not aware of all methods used.

But you said that optometrists do determine if the functions of the human eye fall within acceptable parameters.

Should optometrists leave well enough alone when they determine that a person's subjective perception is not indicative of objective reality, or should the optometrist advise the patient on how to correct his vision so his subjective perception is consistent with the outside world?

[_Quasimodo]

If reality is the summation of our experiences and perceptions, then how are we to judge whether reality is objective or subjective? If it is merely subjective, then how are we to judge whether one person’s experience or perception is correct or incorrect?

I see hope for this thread in that we might be able to discuss the merits of spiritual experience, the importance of emotional and physical experience, and the necessity of scientific experience.

lazily skipping over a lot of posts and going back to the OP, current physics has the universe consisting of spinning bits of energy. The constituents of atoms (or the particles that make up atoms).

Given that, the nature of "reality" is totally up for grabs. Nothing truly exists as matter. Maybe the Buddhists are right. All is an illusion.

[_Doctor Scratch]

By Simon's own logic, criticism of the Church is justifiable on the grounds of subjectivity. It's okay to accuse the LDS Church of fraudulence, since, through an apostate's eyes, that's the real, subjective truth.

[_Simon Belmont]

Blue, in the sense that it produces a certain wavelength of light or can be measured by scientific methods, is objective. The experience of blue is subjective.

How do we know that? Is that not itself the matter of conjecture?

Yes, it is. But, by measuring certain behaviors and realizing that each time something "blue" is being examined, it produces the same readings (wavelength, etc.) I believe scientists have enough evidence to determine whether something is "blue" or not. What scientists cannot determine is what blue looks like through my eyes and mind, through my filters.

For example, give 10 three-year-old children a sugar cookie each. Most if not all 10 will have a favorable reaction, and like the taste.

Give those same 10 three-year-old children each a piece of raw squid to eat. Most if not all 10 will promptly spit it out and try to get the residual taste out of their mouths.

I do not necessarily agree with these, though I do see where you are going with them. My position is that, if we were to give a being from outside this planet a sugar cookie, could we expect the same reaction as someone who has encountered sugar cookies before?

So, why do they react so similarly to the same stimuli if they are each experiencing subjectively something differently?

For the same reasons they see a cookie and not a conglomeration of butter, sugar, and flower, or a grouping of bonded atoms. They (we) are taught what a cookie is.

You see, the emotional rush called the burning bosom has been felt by nearly everyone on this board.

[/quote]

You do not know that. You know that people have told you that, but I would imagine that it was a vastly personal experience. For example, if you were able to actually experience someone else's "burning," it would be totally foreign to you.