Cognitive relativism

[Resume]

Good I don't

So you think.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So you think.

So do you

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Hlafordlaes

I like science. But when you come across a statement like this - "A model of reality is not reality itself" - I at least wonder what happened to skepticism and critical thinking?!! I mean, if the model is not a part of reality, then where is it?

Hard to state things with precision in this kind of discussion. Let me have another go:

Reality is as you have always thought of it. That is, there most definitely are things external to you as a person, it is an objective world out there in the sense most would like to give that. Its understanding, where we meet it, is within our thinking, or to repeat the first sentence: Reality is as you have always thought of it.

In a sense we have gone overboard in the effort to eliminate the idea of God and all the rest of what follows from subjectivism to the point where we get such claims as "I only accept objective evidence." Well, that is subjective, if you only accept objective evidence and there is not objective evidence for that.

Not at all, but I completely sympathize with rejecting subjectivism, especially if understood as "whatever, man, anything goes." You will not hear that from me.

There is nothing wrong or less "true" about making our conclusions by consensus of observations. When we call that peer review, it sounds more familiar.

So I accept common sense realism; i.e. there is practical usefulness to the word objective, but it doesn't eliminate the word subjective and it doesn't remove cognitive relativism.

Common sense realism often is used as an alternate of naive realism, but I am guessing you do not really mean that. "Objective" stays very much in our vocabulary; have no fear. Note that in the end, when in science or the courtroom we decide something true, it is by agreeing that our observations and descriptions/measurements/judgements of fact coincide.
...

As a bar owner, I often undertake "bar preaching" for some customers, as I am somewhat an activist in speaking out in favor of reason and science. During my shift, it's all science shows on the TV (though one can no longer trust even National Geographic anymore, boo-hoo.)

One example I very often use to delineate truths derived from science from "local" truths of culture is to take a beer coaster and drop it on the bar. I then state that any human on the planet can do the same and will agree (absent a hurricane) that it will indeed drop onto the counter.

We then move to the alternate ways of explaining why it drops, from Aristotle on up to GR, sans detail. (I tend to linger on Galileo because I am a shameless fanboy.) I need not explain how I proceed from there, as it would belabor the point.

But notice how the very start of the differentiation between science and voodoo begins with the need for a observable that can be shared and confirmed by all who perform the experiment.

Science, as you know and love it!

 

[NearlySane]

If you think so, then it is how you think! I don't think so

But why would you think it important - as you noted in the OP, it's a position that by its own logic cannot be privileged, therefore even if one could make some change based on it, it would be no more justified than anything else.

Further I don't see that recognising that we are subjective makes much difference, precisely because we are subjective. The reason I related it to free will is based on the Isaiah Berlin quote 'Of Course I believe in free will, I have no choice'. Even if I doubt free will, or am a cognitive relativist (Which is true in both cases for me), it makes no difference except on a purely abstract level. I will continie to act as if I have free will and as if looking both ways when crossing the road makes sense.

 

[Earthborn]

I have a standard test for these sorts of things: I cut myself with my knife (it's a handy test because if I have pants on, I have a knife). If they can make a "particular standpoint" in which the "truth-value" of the statement "My arm is bleeding" is false, I'll accept it.

You make this way too easy. If you cut yourself, my arm is not bleeding.

Your arm might not either; you didn't specify that you cut your arm.

Put another way: everyone looks both ways before crossing the street.

Not everyone does this, and those who do only do so because they have been taught to. This is not a great example of the point you are trying to make.

That is implicite acceptance that truth is not something inside one's head.

What if I look both ways before crossing the street in my dream?

 

[Big Al]

Evidence indicates that our bodies start to act before we consciously form the intention of acting. And other evidence indicates that the memory of what we perceive is quickly modified by emotion and experience.

My guess is that "consciousness" is like a reconnaissance plane overflying a bombing site. It reviews the consequences of actions and classifies them as:

1. Irrelevant. Delete the memory next time we're asleep
2. Has relevance to a prior prejudice, belief or experiential lesson. Use it to reinforce the relevant mental state.
3. Either has strong correlation with existing belief or experience state, or is valuable new positive or negative lesson or appeals to current belief structure. Store as distinct memory, suitably coloured with reinforcing emotions and clarity improvements.

This seems to me to give a reasonable Darwinian explanation for consciousness. Whether or not it is what really happens, I don't know. But in any case, our memories are fickle and unreliable recorders of any external state. I'm no solipsist, and I believe there is a concrete reality outside my head, with which I interact on a daily basis. However, I don't believe memory is a faithful narrative of real events.

 

[dlorde]

So your love to your wife is a seizure--or a sneeze?

I think there's good evidence to suggest that the emotion or feeling of love is the result of unconscious processes (although perhaps not as directly reflexive as a sneeze), whereas the appreciation of that feeling is conscious.

 

[dlorde]

... when you come across a statement like this - "A model of reality is not reality itself" - I at least wonder what happened to skepticism and critical thinking?!! I mean, if the model is not a part of reality, then where is it?

Presumably you don't have a problem with "The map is not the territory"? Over-literal interpretation will often lead to confusion; it's worth trying to understand what is meant. e.g. you can't drive a Matchbox model car to the shops or fly an Airfix plane across the country.

 

[marplots]

Now if you accept this, then you might also understand that the standpoint, that no standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others, is itself not metaphysically privileged over all others.

In other words, what everything is, is nothing but thoughts about thoughts.

So my question to you is, how do you understand cognitive relativism?

Not metaphysically privileged doesn't mean not privileged. For example, I have a right hand. So do many others. If you randomly selected a right hand from this population and hit it with a hammer (oh how we love to interject drama into our hypotheticals!), I would know whether you hit my hand or not.

So I disagree that everything is just "thoughts about thoughts." My thoughts are mine and I am subject to them. I can no more escape them than I can disown my own hand.

As to how I understand cognitive relativism, I think it has a very strong parallel with the relativity of physics, which doesn't deny reality exists, but recognizes that point of view, as input, drives experience and output.

 

[marplots]

It's nonsense.

I have a standard test for these sorts of things: I cut myself with my knife (it's a handy test because if I have pants on, I have a knife). If they can make a "particular standpoint" in which the "truth-value" of the statement "My arm is bleeding" is false, I'll accept it.

Yes, I can take a standpoint where your arm is not bleeding, from my perspective. You may be fooling me, as in this:

 

[tsig]

Now if you accept this, then you might also understand that the standpoint, that no standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others, is itself not metaphysically privileged over all others.

In other words, what everything is, is nothing but thoughts about thoughts.

So my question to you is, how do you understand cognitive relativism?

Sounds like cutting off the tree limb you're standing on.

 

[tsig]

You confuse everyday/common sense objective with everything. For your version of truth to hold every truth must be outside your head/brain So do you love your wife? Is that true? Is that outside your head/brain?

If you want the fun version, then here it is - Is your implicit acceptance inside your head? Is it then true that it is so?!!
In other words it is dead give-away that you start with - "I have a standard test...." Is that inside or outside your head, Dinwar?

If my love for my wife had just stayed inside my head she would not be my wife.

 

[tsig]

Well, you have to look no further than http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/objective "1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual" to see how embedded the idea is in western culture of mind-independent reality.

More later.

If you step in front of a bus you will wind up embedded in the mind-independent reality of it's grill.

 

[tsig]

Hlafordlaes, there is a lot to this, but I will show you my bias. I always link objective truth to objective authority and I resent any idea that someone can hold objective truth and objective authority over me, you or anybody else. This has nothing to do with the usual divide between atheism or not, because if someone can explain everything with objective truth, it follows that they can do so with me and you and thus with objective authority.

So if you can't understand something it must be because the explainer didn't have objective truth?

 

[marplots]

If you step in front of a bus you will wind up embedded in the mind-independent reality of it's grill.

Have you done this experiment?

I did it with an imaginary bus and wasn't harmed.

 

[John Nowak]

I tend to think this isn't quite as complex as it's generally portrayed.

There's an objective reality which exists independent of consciousness. Our knowledge of reality is imperfect because our senses are not perfect, and our consciousness is also imperfect. Science is almost certainly the most effective methodology to bring our knowledge closer to reality.

 

[tsig]

Have you done this experiment?

I did it with an imaginary bus and wasn't harmed.

ETA: Are you often run down by imaginary buses?

 

[marplots]

ETA: Are you often run down by imaginary buses?

Not often. Perhaps my imagination isn't strong enough.

I had a neat dream where I was flying though. Pretty cool. I'm not sure if that means I really can fly, or if I should doubt what my senses tell me. It's certainly a puzzlement.

 

[theprestige]

It's nonsense.

I have a standard test for these sorts of things: I cut myself with my knife (it's a handy test because if I have pants on, I have a knife). If they can make a "particular standpoint" in which the "truth-value" of the statement "My arm is bleeding" is false, I'll accept it.

Put another way: everyone looks both ways before crossing the street. That is implicite acceptance that truth is not something inside one's head.

There are places in spacetime where your arm is not bleeding. There are places in spacetime where you don't have pants on. There are probably places in spacetime where you have pants on, but don't have a knife.

Which of these spacetime standpoints would you say has the highest metaphysical privilege?

 

[Big Al]

I tend to think this isn't quite as complex as it's generally portrayed.

There's an objective reality which exists independent of consciousness. Our knowledge of reality is imperfect because our senses are not perfect, and our consciousness is also imperfect. Science is almost certainly the most effective methodology to bring our knowledge closer to reality.

Good call. Absent scientific proof, our best bet for getting a handle on what is real is the general consensus, as this has at least a half-reasonable chance of filtering out some of the perceptual noise. It's not guaranteed, but it may even out the variations caused by fallible perception. If I ram sure I once read that JFK's middle name was Fitzgarret and a bunch of people say, "No, it was Fitzgerald," I would be foolish to persist in my belief.

This should not be confused with the popularity of unverifiable opinions, of course.