Beyond Inter-subjectivity, and Qualia
++Me: What is the nature of a subjective perspective versus an objective perspective?
++GPT4: The difference between a subjective perspective and an objective perspective centers on the distinction between personal and impersonal viewpoints.
The subjective perspective refers to an individual’s personal, introspective perception or viewpoint. It includes personal experiences, beliefs, values, and biases, which can vary significantly from one individual to another. Subjectivity is associated with first-person perspective; it’s about what happens inside your mind and your personal experience of the world. It’s inherently private and often difficult, if not impossible, to directly communicate or measure.
In contrast, the objective perspective is impersonal and independent of individual thought and interpretation. This perspective attempts to consider facts without influence from personal feelings or prejudices, viewing things as an impartial observer. Objectivity aims for universal truths that can be agreed upon by multiple observers, and it’s often associated with third-person perspective. It’s what is publicly observable and measurable.
In physics, the objective perspective is primarily at play. Scientists seek to create theories and models that provide an impartial and universally applicable description of the physical universe, independent of individual perspectives. They use the scientific method, experimental data, and mathematical formalisms to create models that can predict the behavior of the physical world in various situations. For example, the law of gravity applies equally to all objects in the universe, regardless of the observer.
In metaphysics, the tension between objective and subjective perspectives is more pronounced. Questions about the nature of reality, existence, time, and causality often hinge on whether you take a more subjective or objective perspective. For example, does time flow at the same rate for all observers, or is it dependent on the observer’s state of motion or gravitational field, as proposed by Einstein’s theory of relativity?
In philosophy, both perspectives have their places. Ethical debates often revolve around subjective and objective perspectives. Some philosophers argue for moral objectivism, the belief that certain moral truths are universal and independent of individual perspectives. On the other hand, moral subjectivism holds that moral truths are dependent on individual or cultural perspectives.
In the philosophy of mind, debates about consciousness and the nature of personal experience (the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’) often hinge on issues of subjectivity and objectivity. How can we reconcile our subjective, first-person experience of the world with the objective, third-person perspective of science?
To fully grasp the complexity of the universe, both perspectives are crucial. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and a well-rounded understanding of the world requires a capacity to navigate both.
++Me: So, is it true that what we call an objective perspective lacks information available to a potentially infinite number of subjective perspectives?
++GPT4: The objective perspective, by its nature, aims to represent a universally applicable or “bird’s eye” view of reality, independent of individual biases or perceptions. It seeks facts that hold true regardless of personal viewpoints or experiences, which are the purview of the subjective perspective.
But it’s true to say that the objective perspective does not, and arguably cannot, incorporate the potentially infinite details, nuances, and richness found within individual subjective experiences. This richness includes not just different information, but different types of information — feelings, emotions, personal associations, internal narratives, and so forth.
This isn’t to say that one perspective is inherently “better” or “worse” than the other; they simply serve different roles and are useful in different contexts. The objective perspective is essential in fields where we seek generalizable truths and want to eliminate the influence of individual bias, such as in the natural sciences. The subjective perspective, on the other hand, provides depth and nuance that can be critical in areas like the arts, personal growth, and understanding human behavior and experiences.
In sum, while the objective perspective might “lack” the infinite diversity of subjective experiences, this is not so much a failing as a fundamental aspect of what it means to take an objective view. By stripping away the individual nuances, the objective perspective seeks to reveal underlying structures and principles that hold across many different situations.
++Me: What would you call a perspective that was shared or sharable or seemed to be shared between multiple subjective perspectives, but was not objective?
++GPT4: The perspective you’re describing could be referred to as an “intersubjective” perspective. Intersubjectivity refers to the shared, mutual understanding among individuals. It’s the common-space where our subjective perspectives overlap, and it forms the basis for our ability to communicate, empathize, and share experiences with each other.
Intersubjectivity is not “objective” in the sense that it is not independent of individual perspectives. Instead, it’s a form of subjectivity that is co-created or shared among multiple individuals. It relies on the mutual recognition of subjective experiences and viewpoints.
For example, consider the experience of watching a movie with a group of friends. Each person has their own subjective experience of the movie (their personal feelings, thoughts, and reactions), but there’s also an intersubjective dimension to this situation. This could manifest in shared reactions (everyone laughing at the same time), shared understandings (everyone recognizing the significance of a plot twist), or shared feelings (everyone being moved by a poignant scene).
In a broader sense, our shared social and cultural norms, symbols, and language are all forms of intersubjectivity. They are not “objective” in the sense of being independent of all individuals, but they are shared among many individuals and form a common basis for communication and understanding.
++Me: Consider the possible perspectives of a distributed intelligence or a collective intelligence or a super-organism, is there anything new there outside of subjective, inter-subjective, and third-person/objective perspective?
++GPT4: The concepts of distributed intelligence, collective intelligence, or a superorganism indeed introduce fascinating perspectives that add complexity to the traditional subjective, intersubjective, and objective categories. These entities blur the boundaries of individuality and challenge our traditional understanding of what constitutes a “subject.”
In a distributed or collective intelligence, you could imagine a sort of “networked subjectivity” or a “collective subjectivity.” Here, each individual node (or agent) in the system has its own subjective perspective, but the overall system also has a form of subjectivity or consciousness that emerges from the interactions of all these individual nodes. This emergent perspective would not be reducible to any individual node’s perspective, nor would it be merely the aggregate of all individual perspectives. Instead, it would be a new kind of perspective that arises from the system as a whole.
This perspective would not fit neatly into the traditional categories of subjective, intersubjective, or objective. It’s subjective in the sense that it’s a form of consciousness or experience, but it’s not tied to a single individual. It’s intersubjective in the sense that it arises from the interaction of multiple individuals, but it’s not simply a shared understanding or common ground among individuals. And it’s not objective in the sense that it’s not independent of all individual perspectives, but rather emerges from them.
One way to think about it could be as a form of “emergent subjectivity” or “networked subjectivity.” This might be particularly relevant in the context of artificial intelligence, where we might have systems composed of many interacting agents, or in the context of social insects like ants or bees, where the “superorganism” of the colony displays complex behaviors that can’t be reduced to the behaviors of individual ants or bees.
Of course, these are new and complex areas of investigation with many unresolved questions. How do we understand the consciousness or perspective of such entities? How does it relate to our human experience? These are open questions that push the boundaries of our current understanding in fields like cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and artificial intelligence.
++Me: Is it fair to say that qualia is an instance of some type of subjective experience, and that a third-person/objective experience lacks all qualia?
++GPT4: Qualia refers to the subjective, experiential aspects of consciousness — the “what it’s like” to experience something. Examples include the redness of a red object, the sweetness of sugar, or the feeling of pain. They are deeply personal and subjective, grounded in a specific perspective or point of view.
In philosophy of mind, there is debate over how, or even whether, we can reconcile the existence of qualia with an objective, third-person perspective. This is known as the “hard problem of consciousness” posed by philosopher David Chalmers. He distinguished between the “easy problems” of consciousness, which concern the objective functioning of the brain and can be addressed by physical sciences, and the “hard problem,” which is about explaining how and why we have qualia or subjective experiences.
From the objective, third-person perspective, we can study the brain and observe the physical processes associated with consciousness, but the qualia — the subjective experiences themselves — are not directly accessible. We can know that certain brain processes are associated with certain experiences, but we can’t experience what another person is experiencing. In that sense, it’s accurate to say that an objective or third-person perspective lacks access to qualia.
However, this doesn’t mean that the objective perspective is irrelevant or unimportant when it comes to understanding consciousness. The objective perspective can provide valuable insights into the neural correlates of consciousness, the physical processes underlying our experiences. But it’s just one piece of the puzzle. To get a complete picture of consciousness, we also need to take into account the subjective perspective and the reality of qualia. This is a challenge that continues to engage scientists and philosophers alike.
