Subjectivity and Science

[John Freestone]

PixyMisa, you said that consciousness...

Is generated by the brain.

While you might support this view with the good old argument things are exactly as they appear to billions of external observers, it is just supposition. When the brain dies it is natural for outside observers to assume that consciousness has gone (as in stopped, rather than departed). However, it seems undeniable to me that, when your body dies, you might be surprised to find that your consciousness is still there, but you are unable to affect the material reality of living people, and thus can't tell them.

It also seems undeniable to me that the phenomenon of consciousness being present when the brain is in the waking state (and, actually, being mindful, but that's a side issue), and not present in certain other conditions (i.e. stone cold dead, in deep sleep, in trance states or anaesthetised) could be explained by other theories than the brain as the cause of consciousness. For instance consciousness could be like radio waves; when you smash your transistor radio, the waves don't disappear. There might be other theories, and even as a scientist it would seem you have to concede that another theory might turn out to be right.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, therefore, just that you are choosing to state with confidence bordering on arrogance one theory out of many. Arguing (as you and a few others do here) for things being the way they appear (otherwise anyone else must provide alternative cosmologies with evidence) is no substitute for accepting the relative ignorance of your position, and thus recognising alternative views as not quite as inferior to yours.

Occam's razor is a pretty stupid idea if taken as anything more than a rule of thumb. At one time people opined that the Earth was quite obviously at the centre of the Universe from the same mentality, and while it's fine to say that the heliocentric view had to be proposed with evidence for it to take precedence over the geocentric, there is a difference, before such an event, between the comprehension of the wise (which includes the understanding that they might just possibly be wrong) and your apparent philosophy.

Do you deny that - while you believe it is not the case - you might just possibly find that you remain conscious after death, and watch your mourners weeping over you?

 

[martu]

Measurement of sensorily-evident phenomena with instrumentation; reproducibility of results by different observers with different apparatus.

What does "sensorily-evident phenomena" mean?

 

[PixyMisa]

It is not so much that "I have deconstructed my personal identity" rather that I have become aware of the process by which the experience of personal identity is created.

No, you have come to a belief that you have become aware of the process by which the experience of personal identity is created.

As we've already noted, your understanding is completely disconnected with observation.

This may not be such a choice, I don't know. Maybe I directed some action, or maybe it just happened anyway and it seemed like "I" did it. In any case, in order to communicate about this state, it's going to come out in the first person, the "I" perspective.

It doesn't relly matter what perspective it comes out in, so long as the perspective is not universal. Which it ain't, obviously, or we wouldn't be discussing this.

I find that it is the presence of thoughts that creates the experience of personal identity. You can simply be passively present in a situation and there will be no personal identity. Only with the arousal of thought does it come on. It seems to be an artefact of unconscious thought.

What you are saying is that you are not aware of being aware of yourself until you think about it. This is true. But it's not all that interesting.

The more aware you are of your thinking processes, the less the sensation of personal identity is present.

Mmmmno.

I would agree. Though I must say this does seem an odd position for a JREFer to take.

Not at all. People do lie about their beliefs, but people also sincerely believe all sorts of silly things. So when someone says they believe something nonsensical, we tend to take them at face value unless there is some indication they are lying. For example, if they are making millions of dollars a year off by claiming to believe something, that would raise certain doubts.

Well, I would dispute this actually. You could answer Yes, without actually having a personal identity, merely the notion of it.

How?

There could be simply the assumption that it exists. This test merely demonstrates the belief, there is nothing in the actual act of answering that demonstrates that personal identity exists, making it quite different from testing someone if they're awake or able to speak English.

Not at all. If you believe you have personal identity, you cannot be mistaken. Personal identity is information, and with information, unlike matter, illusions are real. That's how computers work, after all.

Personal identity cannot be measured, cannot be located. It has no substantial existence.

It's a process, not a thing. It happens in the brain.

No brain process has been uncovered to account for it, thus it would seem that it is entirely notional.

A false premise and a non-sequitur. Nice trick.

We know that brain processes give rise to personal identity. We know this because we can turn it on and off by interfering with the biochemical operation of the brain. It is not necessary to localise it to a specific lobe before we can make this statement.

Even if all we had was the evidence of how people interact with each other when they are awake, sober, calm, and rational, that would still suffice to demonstrate that personal identity is a real thing. As I have pointed out, if I say I, or the Borg Queen says We, that's it. Case closed, we're done.

 

[martu]

... consciousness could be like radio waves; when you smash your transistor radio, the waves don't disappear. There might be other theories, and even as a scientist it would seem you have to concede that another theory might turn out to be right.

And it might be small invisible pixies pushing neurons around and painting 'thought pictures' on our retina. Or we're all in giant vats breaking the second law of thermodynamics while out of control machines harvest our energy.

Come back when you have some evidence and we'll discuss it, until then enjoy the fruits of real science while making stuff up.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi Apathia,

I follow what you are saying and I agree.

I find that there is the experience of egoic identification with a narrow limitation of form (body, feelings, thoughts) and there is the experience of identifying with either all or form or nothing of it.

Pretty much everyone has the former, and naturally assumes that it is a "given," a permanent reality common to all humans. But when the latter occurs, even for a brief period, the truth of the situation becomes clear. The mind ascribes identity to certain aspects of its experience of life and labels others aspects "not I." This process is not innate. It simply arises as a result of some brain or mind process, and can be overcome by deepening self-awareness.

Identify does not mean equate, more of the projections nonsense. We have all sorts of thoughts, some will have validity, some will not. Just because you think you have attained some sort of 'oneness' does not mean you have, it means you have had the experience of oneness. So it may be a valid thought or perception. It certainly may have validity concerning for the internal mental world. That does not mean there will be information transferred from distant objects, until demonstrated.

Completely!

What I find so intriguing about the JREF forum is that so many members are only too vocal to declaim psychicism and all manner of related phenomena, on the grounds that it cannot be scientifically proven

On the road to Wooville?

, but are quite unwilling to ask for experimental validation of their own sense of limited selfhood,

What evidence do you have that your perceptions are not bounded by your physical body?

which is just as tentative as psychicism!

Tentative yes, all thoughts are equally true and false, but what evidence is there that support psychisism that is incompatible with the material POV?

They just assume its there, and are usually just as wont to avoid dealing with the question as a psychic under the spotlight might be.

Nick

More bogus assertions, the subjective/objective divide is in your mind only. Consistancy/isotropy is the assumption of science.

Wgere is the evidence to the contrary?

 

[Dancing David]

Hi David,

I am not presuming to know what you think. I am saying - how can you demonstrate that the thoughts, currently passing through what you experience as "your" mind, have possession at all? That they belong to anyone, or better, any limited entity? The experience you are apparently having, that the thoughts passing through the mind are "yours," is being constructed by the mind. The thoughts pass anyway, the senses take in information anyway, but the notion that any of this is happening to any personal identity cannot be empirically validated.

Um Nick I will tell you this with grandmotherly kindness. there is no mind, there is a brain. All the appears to exist is the physical biochemical processes in the brain.

You are the one who needs to demonstrate your theory, for it is solipistic madness.

What evidence is there that you are not bound by the limits of your physical body. Such as it may be, illsuion or real?

I have already abandoned the idea of personal identity.

You are the one clinging to it. There is the body, dependant upon it are the perceptions, thoughts, emotions, sensations and habits. that is all.

Demonstrate that anything you are talking about as a human experience is not one of the five heaps.

This affects nothing physical.

Your thoughts are physical.

The world is the same.

See you are a dualist!

If the human body is part and parcel of the world, which it is. Then the brain and all it's processes are part of the world. therefore all thoughts are changes in the physical world.
Otherwise you are a dualist.

All the experiences are sensorily the same.

More unsupported assertion, they are not the same.

It's simply that the notion that these experiences are happening to any personal identity is dissipated. They are just happening.

Nick

Duh? Those experiences are limited to the physical body.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi Joe,

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

Nick

[lampoon]

So does getting drunk!

You have left the raod to Wooville and have now arrived at Rock Candy Mountain!
[/lampoon]

Evidence?

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa, you said that consciousness...
While you might support this view with the good old argument things are exactly as they appear to billions of external observers, it is just supposition. When the brain dies it is natural for outside observers to assume that consciousness has gone (as in stopped, rather than departed). However, it seems undeniable to me that, when your body dies, you might be surprised to find that your consciousness is still there, but you are unable to affect the material reality of living people, and thus can't tell them.

I've mentioned general anaesthetics several times, and with very good reason: They switch off conscious awareness. Click, and what makes you you is gone. A simple chemical enters the bloodstream, your brain responds, and your mind disappears.

What's more, you are making the argument from ignorance here. It is true that I can't prove deductively that the conscious minds of dead people don't continue to exist, unable to affect the real world. I can't prove that incorporeal chipmunks don't ride around on my head every day as I go to work, either.

There's an infinite number of such claims. There's no reason to given any of them any consideration.

It also seems undeniable to me that the phenomenon of consciousness being present when the brain is in the waking state (and, actually, being mindful, but that's a side issue), and not present in certain other conditions (i.e. stone cold dead, in deep sleep, in trance states or anaesthetised) could be explained by other theories than the brain as the cause of consciousness. For instance consciousness could be like radio waves; when you smash your transistor radio, the waves don't disappear.

The problem with that, and the problem with every non-naturalistic theory of consciousness, is that they only appear to make sense if you no knowledge of modern neuroscience or psychology whatsoever.

We know an enormous amount about how the brain does what it does. When you see something red, we can trace the activity from the retina to your conscious awareness. What's more, by rather clever experiments, we can show that your conscious awareness of making a decision follows your acting upon that decision.

We can stimulate or monitor individual neurons and find out what they do. In one example, an experimenter identified a neuron in a monkey that activated only when the monkey saw hairy legs.

Sorry, but no. The radio wave analogy is completely untenable. Consciousness is intimately and intricately connected to brain function, and this is demonstrable right down to the cellular and biochemical level. For the radio wave analogy to be correct, every single neuron would have to be both a transmitter and a receiver, and the end result would be that the neuron behaves exactly as neurons behave anyway.

There might be other theories, and even as a scientist it would seem you have to concede that another theory might turn out to be right.

All science is tentative. However, all ideas of a non-physical origin for consciousness are laughable.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, therefore, just that you are choosing to state with confidence bordering on arrogance one theory out of many.

It may be arrogant, but by damn, it's got something to be arrogant about. The amount of evidence supporting the theory that brains generate consciousness is staggering. The amount of evidence opposing it is precisely zero.

Arguing (as you and a few others do here) for things being the way they appear (otherwise anyone else must provide alternative cosmologies with evidence) is no substitute for accepting the relative ignorance of your position, and thus recognising alternative views as not quite as inferior to yours.

That is not even remotely what I argue.

What I argue is that things being the way they appear is an assumption. But having tested this for thousands of years, and systematically tested it for hundreds, we find that it's the right assumption.

I have vast libraries of evidence, literally millions of books and journals, all supporting my position. What's more, if you find you disagree with or doubt any part of it, you can repeat the observation or the experiment.

What do you have?

Occam's razor is a pretty stupid idea if taken as anything more than a rule of thumb. At one time people opined that the Earth was quite obviously at the centre of the Universe from the same mentality, and while it's fine to say that the heliocentric view had to be proposed with evidence for it to take precedence over the geocentric, there is a difference, before such an event, between the comprehension of the wise (which includes the understanding that they might just possibly be wrong) and your apparent philosophy.

Utter rubbish.

People did think that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe. And it was precisely by following "my philosophy" that this was shown to be wrong.

I understand perfectly well that all science is tentative. I know what the assumptions are that form the basis for the scientific method, and I recognise them as assumptions.

But that is not a license for you to talk nonsense.

Do you deny that - while you believe it is not the case - you might just possibly find that you remain conscious after death, and watch your mourners weeping over you?

What I deny is that there is any rational reason for considering this as a possibility.

 

[Dancing David]

David, that's an impressive collection of disciplines to study

So are you saying that your mysticism has zero effect on the material world and is something you do strictly for emotional reasons ? You do it to make yourself happy, or simply because you want to and you're not actually seeking out super powers in your study of Magick ?

Um, I am in the physical world, therefore a change in me is a change in the world.

I did/do it because it is who i am. ( I have always swam through seas of deep intuitive/emotional perception, I was always that way.)

Super powers, no.

You can take the ferry or boat and avoid learning to walk on water.

I prefer the modified Crowley model.

A change in perception is a change in the world. (Some are more valid than others.)

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

While you might support this view with the good old argument things are exactly as they appear to billions of external observers, it is just supposition. When the brain dies it is natural for outside observers to assume that consciousness has gone (as in stopped, rather than departed). However, it seems undeniable to me that, when your body dies, you might be surprised to find that your consciousness is still there, but you are unable to affect the material reality of living people, and thus can't tell them.

But it doesn’t mean that your sentiment is true, regardless of how undeniable it seems to you. It’s just an idea that isn’t supported by evidence except your own thoughts. One can also have the opposite idea – "when a person dies, consciousness in that entity ends" (i.e. when I die, I am not) – which seems to be supported by far more evidence. When it comes to questions about consciousness, it’s not always a good idea to trust one’s intuition.

It also seems undeniable to me that the phenomenon of consciousness being present when the brain is in the waking state (and, actually, being mindful, but that's a side issue), and not present in certain other conditions (i.e. stone cold dead, in deep sleep, in trance states or anaesthetised) could be explained by other theories than the brain as the cause of consciousness. For instance consciousness could be like radio waves; when you smash your transistor radio, the waves don't disappear. There might be other theories, and even as a scientist it would seem you have to concede that another theory might turn out to be right.

Again, it doesn’t really matter how undeniable that feels to you. I’m sorry, but that’s just how it also seems to be. That as well seems to be an undeniable thing about our cosmos; the sun doesn’t care if you use sunscreen or not – when you make assessment about reality, try also to utilize a third-person perspective, so that you have a broader perspective.

We also haven’t found any evidence for such waves. Should there be any evidence for this, then I’m sure a valid quest for a paradigm change could surface. There is some kind of research in this area (Sheldrake & morphological fields), but I’m not sure about the quality.

 

[Dancing David]

Then there's someone like Dancing David - you make my head hurt!You see it's that last bit I just can't imagine anyone saying, feeling or believing. I can only imagine that their worldview is so gripping that it has overshaddowed their immediate, absolute, subjective knowledge of existing. Again, no problem that we're different, just can't get my head round "I am not conscious". How do you know you're not conscious unless you're conscious of having some grasp of that knowledge? - - - No, I think I do understand how you could answer that. Is it that there's a kind of not-you that is an illusion of being a subject caused by physical brain matter (but you have seen through it, thanks to science)?

AND you believe in a non-real spiritual realm that shouldn't be mixed up with reality? Ouch indeed.

So close and yet so far.

Remebemr that the buddha taught we are all unique and interdependant.

I am a spiritual person.

What are those experiences that you have? Apparent physical processes, apart from the ontology of the universe.

I am not conscious for a very simple reason, it is a not useful concept. It is a conflated concept that people attribute magical powers. take a look athe term 'radical behaviorism.' Consciousness is another concept of the self hovering over the skandhas.

The insulation is an imporatant factor and it is an internal thing.

If you begin to seek meaning of the emotional/intuitive nature in all things you will become mad from the over looking. A dog barking may have a meaning but is is god talking to you? Other than god as the physical universe. And is the dog barking at you or because it sees a squirel?

Those who find spiritual interactions everywhere eventualy become over loaded.

Shamans go to the spirit world they do not journey in the body of light all the time. Witches and magicians set up a ritual circle and create the sacred space.

It is good advice.

That way you won't think that satanists are trying to curse you all the time.

The internal events of mysticism are in the material world, in your body. There is no divide but those who want to put magical thinking into every day and every way are usually a little crazy.

 

[Nick227]

The reason I mentioned Advaita (neo-advaita) is that you seem to have a similar kind of philosophical standpoint. By your posts I inferred that you have been listening to people like Adyashanti, Tolle, Mooji, Gangaji, Sherman, &Co. Your descriptions are almost identical with how these people speak about consciousness and reality, so I assumed there’s a connection.

Experiences of non-duality are not that rare. Yes, it can be meaningful and tempting to treat extraordinary states of consciousness as truer than other kind of states. It does, however, not mean it’s actually so. There’s no reason draw unsupported conclusions about reality just because you’ve had momentary states of no-self.

Hi Lupus,

I've heard of a couple of the guys you mention. I've listened to a couple of Gangaji tapes years back. These people are trying to articulate something but this is inevitably a highly fraught process as there is no point from which to describe something objectively. And all thoughts are anyway just outpouring as a result of a likely deterministic process.

Nick

eta forgot to say thanks for the links. i will check them out. sounds interesting

 

[PixyMisa]

There is some kind of research in this area (Sheldrake & morphological fields), but I’m not sure about the quality.

The word "abysmal" comes to mind here.

 

[Nick227]

Everyone is born, born a blank slate, a bundle of instincts.

Everyone dies. And they are never heard from again.

They don't come back. They aren't subsumed into a collective consciousness. They're gone, because the body and the brain is what made them what they were.

When I spoke at my father's funeral, I said that he lived on in everyone present in our memories, in the way he affected our lives. But that stuff is all physical, not metaphysical.

You die, and eventually you are forgotten. What you did in your life is what remains. If you learned, if you discovered new things, and you passed that on to others, that remains of you. If you built, if you invented, if you created new works of art, that remains of you.

But if you did none of that because you believed that your mind is eternal, all that's left is dust.

It's reasonable to assume that all outgoing aspects of the body and mind go away with death, for sure. I mean, some people believe that there are higher bodies that take physical form again, but I don't know, and I'm not speaking of that anyway. What I'm saying is that the palate on which all the activity of life takes place on does not die. If you fully experience life then you become aware that it is not who you are.

BTW, when I wrote before that you will notice that you were never born and you will never die I was doing so just to give a signpost as to a position of awareness.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

All of that is true. But it doesn't answer the question.

Are you saying this is not science? You sensorily experience something or you hypothesise it's existence. You find some measuring apparatus and define one of its aspects. Then you reproduce the studies, ideally with new people and different machines. Sounds like science to me.

What you are proposing as a means to scientifically validate personal identity sounds very little like science to me. Personal identity is purely notional. It can't be located and there's no apparatus to detect or measure it. Your sense of personal identity can't be experienced by another.

Your investigative procedure sounds entirely subjective to me.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

I am not conscious for a very simple reason, it is a not useful concept. It is a conflated concept that people attribute magical powers. take a look athe term 'radical behaviorism.'

Right.

I say that consciousness exists, but I also say that I can build a conscious mind with about 100 transistors*, so it's pretty clear that I'm not ascribing it any magical powers.

* Let's see, four bits of state, four bits of meta-information, and let's assume I need to latch two bits each of input and output. Twelve SR latches is 48 transistors, so I have 52 left for selection, comparison and operation. I never claimed it would be conscious in a particularly interesting way.

 

[Nick227]

Even if all we had was the evidence of how people interact with each other when they are awake, sober, calm, and rational, that would still suffice to demonstrate that personal identity is a real thing. As I have pointed out, if I say I, or the Borg Queen says We, that's it. Case closed, we're done.

I would agree with you but for the fact that I and plenty of other people also experience life without the filter that creates the experience of personal identity. Thus to distinguish between the experience of personal identity and the actuality of personal identity is to me entirely valid. You seem to me to be one minute advocating rational materialism and the other completely reversing your stance and being fine with a merely subjective study.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you saying this is not science?

That is what I am saying.

You sensorily experience something or you hypothesise it's existence. You find some measuring apparatus and define one of its aspects. Then you reproduce the studies, ideally with new people and different machines. Sounds like science to me.

Then you have completely misunderstood what science is about.

Science is not about measuring things. Science is about explaining things, and when we say "explain", I mean useful explanations, rigorous, testable, predictive (and where possible, mathematical) models.

Dropping lead weights out a window isn't science.

Measuring the time they take to hit the ground isn't science.

Constructing an equation that predicts how long they will take to hit the ground - and then testing it - is science.

What you are proposing as a means to scientifically validate personal identity sounds very little like science to me.

Yes, well, we've seen what you think science is.

Personal identity is purely notional. It can't be located and there's no apparatus to detect or measure it.

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

Your sense of personal identity can't be experienced by another.

So?

Your investigative procedure sounds entirely subjective to me.

Not at all.

I'm not asking myself if I experience personal identity, I'm asking other people.

If I want to know if someone is in pain, how would I go about that, scientifically?

 

[PixyMisa]

I would agree with you but for the fact that I and plenty of other people also experience life without the filter that creates the experience of personal identity.

Since there's no such filter, that's not much of an accomplishment.

Thus to distinguish between the experience of personal identity and the actuality of personal identity is to me entirely valid.

Why? Everything you think, do, say, or experience happens to you. You can't experience someone else's thoughts or feelings or perceptions. So the claim that you don't have an actual personal identity is obviously nonsensical.

You seem to me to be one minute advocating rational materialism and the other completely reversing your stance and being fine with a merely subjective study.

No, it's a thoroughly objective study. I can repeat the experiment with corpses or coma patients or doorknobs, and not one of them will say yes. But with people, well, look what we find.

 

[Nick227]

I'm not asking myself if I experience personal identity, I'm asking other people.

If I want to know if someone is in pain, how would I go about that, scientifically?

I think you'll find that science has some problems with measuring pain. This does not mean that you can't assess pain, merely that it's hard to do so scientifically. You can ask someone if they're hurting, but this is subjective analysis.

In many psychological fields much use is made of subjective data. Assessing depression with the BDI, or monitoring withdrawal symptoms in detoxing addicts are examples. You ask the subject questions and you record their responses. The data is put against previous results or data acquired from the same subject earlier on. But this is subjective analysis. I'm asking for hard evidence - apparatus, measurement, objectivity - proper science.

Nick