I 255
Subjective/Subjectivity/Stalnaker: subjectivity always depends on the context. Objectivity: contents of normal beliefs about objective facts are objective and removable from the context.
I 265
Subjectivity/subjective experience/Nagel/Stalnaker: If we understand experience only from an objective point of view, we do not yet know what it is like to grasp something. Ex how scrambled eggs taste to a cockroach.
>
Hetero-phenomenology.
Stalnaker: Are you saying that there are.
1. subjective facts exist, which even a complete description leaves out, or
2. that we could never grasp them?
Modest view/Stalnaker: the modest view is compatible with the 2nd view.
Objective fact/Stalnaker: but is it even an objective fact what scrambled eggs taste like to a cockroach? Which, if it could be expressed by a proposition of the cockroach, would be incomprehensible to us?
>
Understanding, >
Knowledge how.
I 266
"Scrambled eggs taste like this": this cannot be taken seriously.
Subjective content/modest view/stalnaker: An alternative view is also compatible with the modest view:
Analogy: Ex The fact of how scrambled eggs are for the cockroach is as incomprehensible to me as the fact TN expresses when he says "I am TN." or
E.g. "The treasure is buried here" when I am not in the place.
>
Phenomena/Stalnaker.
Subjective facts/Stalnaker: Subjective facts are not separable from the subject.
Subjective/objective/subjectivity/stalnaker: we can reconcile the two only by bringing together features of the objective world with facts about the subject's place in the world. This requires a decision about how rich such a picture of the world should be, so that it becomes clear that we are things that can have a subjective point of view. That's a daunting task.
Subject/Stalnaker: "What is it like to be a subject?".
Obviously there are objective differences between subjects and other things.
Some Vs: This is already a bias, because there are no facts about what has a subjective point of view and what does not.
>
Facts, >
Nonfactualism.
A person can treat things as foreign selves: Ex being angry at his computer, Ex being angry at a golf club, etc.
Stalnaker: certainly there is no clear line between things that are subjects and things that are not.
Subjecthood is complex. There are also gradations. Relatively simple things can be subjects.
I 267
Def minimal subject/terminology/stalnaker: a minimal subject is Bsp anything that is a representative, that receives, stores, or transmits information.
An objective representation can be given in functional terms. A richer representation will take into account the abilities to represent. It is ultimately the capacity for phenomenal awareness. How something is to the thing.
Consciousness/objective/stalnaker: an objective representation will not tell us what it is like to be conscious, but that is not its goal either.
>
Consciousness.
But it must say, how the world must be constituted, so that a thing can be conscious in it.
There is no claim that we have to simulate a subjective point of view with it. Or that we would have to replace it by an objective representation.
>
Objectivity.
