Please define what you mean via the term 'point of view' ?"

FOODCHAIN POSTED :Any point in spacetime, i.e, the rock, your neighbor, yourself, your dog. The rock's "point of view" has individual limits and conditions which do not apply to yourself or your neighbor. A 39-year old lesbian's point of view will tend to differ from a 22-year old heterosexual male point of view. Your dog sees the world from a point of view which seems very different from a mollusk's, or a carpenter ant's point of view. Etc...

RESPONSE : So the term 'point of view' as you use it refers to the differing predispositions (for perceptual and/or apperceptive) focus that effect the ways in which a conscious agent focuses on the phenomenon that it interacts with due to the dynamics of different types of embodiment ?

"What if the motive is indeed only to receive the exhaustive knowledge of a given body of data and what epistemic duties are directly entailed to respond to it after the inner act of mind and reception of sense data as instrumental vehicle for such content is received by the mind of the observer .?"

FOODCHAIN POSTED :The tendency to organize sensory impressions in such a way, especially linguistically, is a human convention. Therefore, two individuals of the hypothetical motive you describe could come to very different conclusions depending on their experiences. A deaf woman born in 1958 with that motive would probably come to different conclusions than a blind man aged 19 with the same motive.

RESPONSE: But if two individuals are exposed to the exact same sensory qualia, via the requisite sense data coming from an object or particular ensemble of objects, in the same swath of time , then wouldn't there be a reciprocity of the organization of sense datum and the epistemic ramfications of such data (barring some extraneous factors such as cognitive or neurological noise in the persons) then be the same for people with the same motives ? For example, people who can both see and hear seeing the same phenomenon (like the successive upwellings of a fountain in some quadrangle), who have just the plain motive of wanting only to record what they visually see and hear with mental notes of the sensations that manifest when they see and here what they see and hear , wouldn't they organize sensory impressions in the same way ?

"What if there is nothing but the intake of the body of data and the eidetic reduction of such data in that act of mind , would not that be objective ? "

FOODCHAIN POSTED : Perception is an active process, as all information is near-instantaneously organized and categorized in terms of the individual's past experiences or lack thereof. A purely passive intake of information creates arguments about the nature of consciousness that become very problematic very quickly. If you see a dog, it's hard to see it as a completely unique phenomenon without instantly recognizing it as a canine or canine-like creature who will tend to behave within a certain set of variation based on one's experiences with dogs.

RESPONSE : Often, there are associational overlays upon perceptual data, which are overlaid upon a given data (or datum) by dint of memory associations .

However, consider the following thought experiment to note how a perceptual intake could be purely passive and yet involve awareness obtaining as a result of that activity . Consider the scenario of a person who is put in a dark room: one with absolutely no light, when the door ,or portal is closed with them within . Now, image that such a room has a tiny pinprick hole about the size and shape of a hole through the surface of a salt or pepper shaker, with a lid that can be pulled back . Furthermore, imagine that the person who has been ushered into that dark room is then exposed to a thin beam of white light , sometime after they have been ushered in and their eyes have already adjusted to the dark .

Such a person would then (if they have sight), then see the thin beam of white light as a type of dot of white brightness . Such a dot of light would be a pure perceptual quale (which calls to mind the concept of qualia, as explored by philosopher Thomas Nagel) ...of a pure type of qualia . People seldom suddenly see a pure dot of white light (in everyday experiences on the planet) un-accompanied by other visual qualia in the field of potential vision , for people are seldom put in a dark room wherein there is no intrinsic illumination, except that which is provided by a light be shone through a pinprick hole in the wall of the room . Hence, the light quale would , due to its apparent isolation, in terms of the visual field provided, as a result of the visual field being darkened , would be likely *devoid* of the overlay of associations which would have been present, if , instead, the light dot had been in a visual field (with other visual objects) which would have fostered a network of visual phenomenon .

The epistemic result, immediately after the reception of the dot of light through the eyes and into the visual cortex, would be that of a near generic awareness of brightness and, concurrently, something appearing, in a visual field where there had been no intrinsic visual quales immediately before . Hence , that would be a visual experience likely to be devoid of prejudicial associations and , hence, objective .