Subjectivity and Science

[JoeEllison]

Thanks Joe...I've been reading on this topic since this thread started. I've only been reading this one, and the New Age Religions Don't make You Happy...for the past week or so and the confusion both those threads generated led me to fear for my sanity at times.

So if I discard the "importance" of the non materialist view of consciousness except to acknowledge that it has some bearing on the emotional well being and outlook of non materialists.. Then I'm left wondering what the attack on science is all about.

As far as I can tell "belief" is mad at science because science says belief is irrelevant in the "real world" and is counterattacking with the idea that since science is unable to provide a definition of just what thought actually is then science must also be inadequate when it tries to explain other, specific claims made by belief.

Something like that... and part of it seems to be a backlash against the idea of knowledge and education and all that pesky work involved. You'll note in this thread the number of times that it was claimed that scientists and other rationalists have never considered the vague ideas of the non-materialists. I wonder if it isn't some sort of projection, based on the fact that they have never bothered to educate themselves on basic principles.

Really, though, what it comes down to is that believers are angry because their ideas are rightly dismissed as silly. Since their ideas cannot compete with science, they counter that since science also makes assumptions and doesn't have absolute answers, there is some sort of equivalence between science and whatever stuff they make up when they are high or drunk.

 

[hammegk]

Something like that... and part of it seems to be a backlash against the idea of knowledge and education and all that pesky work involved. You'll note in this thread the number of times that it was claimed that scientists and other rationalists have never considered the vague ideas of the non-materialists. I wonder if it isn't some sort of projection, based on the fact that they have never bothered to educate themselves on basic principles.

Really, though, what it comes down to is that believers are angry because their ideas are rightly dismissed as silly. Since their ideas cannot compete with science, they counter that since science also makes assumptions and doesn't have absolute answers, there is some sort of equivalence between science and whatever stuff they make up when they are high or drunk.

That's as silly as the apparent view held by a number of posters that epistemology, and science, depends in any way on belief in "physicalism/materialism".

 

[JoeEllison]

That's as silly as the apparent view held by a number of posters that epistemology, and science, depends in any way on belief in "physicalism/materialism".

You still don't have anything to add, huh?

 

[Nick227]

What's really interesting is that this thread is up to however many pages, and Nick is still dishonestly claiming that no one has presented anything to him, when the truth is the exact opposite.

And the hard evidence is....? I seem to have missed that bit.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I haven't read this entire thread, so excuse me if this has been gone over before. I just want to clarify your definition of mind by asking rather than searching through 400 posts.

Is what you are calling 'mind' not the physical brain itself, but what might be described as the patterns of neural activity that stops when a person dies or the difference between a living brain and a dead one, also referred to as person's spirit, soul, or invididual ego?

Thank you.

Beth

eta: If I am understanding you correctly, 'mind' may or may not include some hypothesized activity outside of the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum we normally term 'reality'?

Hi Beth,

I'm afraid I don't know so much about these things. I used the word "mind" and I defined it as I did. I was really just commenting on how I had noticed that the phenomena of identification with thought and emotion appears to drop off as self-awareness rises, and how one may thus become aware of a baseline non-dual state of reality.

Nick

 

[hammegk]

You still don't have anything to add, huh?

You are mistaking my posts for your own.

 

[Nick227]

One thing I don't understand though is all this hoopla over the idea of "I" or "mine" I know my thoughts are mine simply because nobody else, anywhere in the world is staring at what I'm staring at right now, and wondering where it came from. I know this to be true, because what I'm staring at just manifested itself ( yikes...did I just say that ? ) in the past few minutes and there's no one around, besides me, to know it's here.

Also, I know my thoughts are my own, because when my wife asks me "What are you thinking? " and I make up an answer that doesn't involve another woman, she believes me.

Beth, I posed the same question back in post #249, and I'm still awaiting an answer. I strongly suspect it will be "yes" this is all about belief in the soul.

Hey Stout,

It's not so much that the thoughts that arise in your brain might belong to someone else, rather that their creation of the "I" experience cannot be tracked down empirically. You seek it here, you seek it there....you know how it goes.

When you say things like my body, my feelings and my thoughts, then to whom or what does this my refer? People say "why, to me, of course!" Fair enough, but who or what is this "me," this "I?" It's a concept, a notion of limited selfhood that arises as an artifact of the experiencing and expression of thought and emotion. It has no substantial existence, no location, no size. On any materialist level, it really barely if at all exists. Yet, it's just assumed to be somehow present.

Now, this doesn't sound like such a big deal. But then, when you study objectivity, you see that the brain uses this artifact, this thing that is just a notion, to construct a rigidly bordered worldview based around subject and object.

The strength of the identification around thought and feeling dictates the strength of the rigid worldview. Without identification, thoughts and feelings would simply pass through the brain, unacted upon. The experience that "the thought is mine" is need to created action from thought. Thus one might say that identification is necessary to get all thinking creatures to act. But, in the human mind, this identification creates the unnecessary artifact of notional limited selfhood.

Nick

 

[articulett]

And the hard evidence is....? I seem to have missed that bit.

Nick

And the evidence that it could be any other way including whatever you refer to but don't say?

 

[Stout]

Thanks again Joe...it comforts me to know I'm on the right track, and have been on for the past couple of decades. I used to be woo positive, in fact when I was 15 I was 'converted" and became a hard core Christian for a couple of weeks. I was actually amazed at things I thought God was telling me, or, more specifically, hinting what I should do or think, that when I finally snapped out of it, I was rather upset at allowing myself to think that way in the first place.

Undaunted, I continued my "explorations' into pretty much all the woo I could get my hands on. I won't bore you with the details but one thing that stood out in particular were the discoveries I made under the influence of ethnogens. At the time of discovery, I thought...this is IT !! ...this is really what life is all about, but the next morning. Oi !!! what was I thinking ?

Nick..I figure that this "I" or "me" is a collection of biochemical processes all acting in synchronicity to create my self awareness and allow "me" to not only act on my physical needs in order to survive, but allow "me" to communicate ideas with others.

In short I need this "I" in order to differentiate myself from "you".

I can't say I agree with the idea that self identification is linked with a "rigid" world view. After all, I'm not saying that I know the soul doesn't exist, but I am saying that I have had a sum total of zero experiences that lead me to believe that it exists....Even when I specifically set out to have those experiences there were nagging doubts in the back of my mind that told me that maybe it wasn't the best idea to always believe what I think.

Maybe belief is one of these things we should strive to let go of after all, there's all the wonder and amazement we really need in the material world. All we need do is look.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well I don't understand it. Are you sure you're not getting me confused with someone else? I've never been involved with scientology and I don't know anything about whatever vid Tom Cruise is showing on the net. As for "divine," I've barely used the word "god."

What I am saying is....there's no hard evidence for the concept "I." It is assumed. When you talk about materialism, or objectivity, as giving the best we know about the world, you overlook that the most basic concept that it is based on is assumed. It cannot be hard proven. The tower of materialism is founded upon an unexamined assumption.

This is what I'm saying. If you don't believe me....then look for yourself.

Nick

Since most of the folks who frequent these discussions are very unsure of the entire concept of "I", I'm not certain that this is such an unexamined assumption after all.

If really pushed, I think most folks who identify themselves as either physicalists or materialists would readily admit that they begin with an assumption. The same should be true of idealists. I can't think of any philosophical system that doesn't begin with an assumption of some sort.

I, personally, begin assuming monism and don't particularly care which one is correct.

 

[articulett]

Great story, stout... what are "ethnogens"?

It would be a good idea to get rid of this notion that faith and belief are good for "knowing something"... it just feeds schizophrenia, confirmation bias, and the more superstitious parts of human nature, plus it isn't true. There is this oppressive meme that only if you had enough faith in "X" everything would fall into place; if your life is hard, it's because you haven't "believed" in X hard enough.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Nick..I figure that this "I" or "me" is a collection of biochemical processes all acting in synchronicity to create my self awareness and allow "me" to not only act on my physical needs in order to survive, but allow "me" to communicate ideas with others.

In short I need this "I" in order to differentiate myself from "you".

I can't say I agree with the idea that self identification is linked with a "rigid" world view. After all, I'm not saying that I know the soul doesn't exist, but I am saying that I have had a sum total of zero experiences that lead me to believe that it exists....Even when I specifically set out to have those experiences there were nagging doubts in the back of my mind that told me that maybe it wasn't the best idea to always believe what I think.

I think I remember Ramachandran mentioning something about the evolution of the self-concept (although in a somewhat speculative manner). Something like: since being able to function in a group was of evolutionary advantage, it makes sense than an ability to evaluate other group members rudimentary behaviour (facial expression, tone of “voice” or grump etc.) also had an evolutionary advantage. In conjunction with that, it also makes sense that it could have been an evolutionary advantage to assess one’s own position in the group. In this “social soup” the notion of self arose as a social advantage and a tool for survival.

What I don’t really understand either, is why materialism (a monist ontology) should be under threat from contemplation of the notion of selfhood.

 

[articulett]

What I don’t really understand either, is why materialism (a monist ontology) should be under threat from contemplation of the notion of selfhood.

It isn't. It's just ye olde' mind game: " Scientists can't explain this to my satisfaction; therefore, my woo is true."

Directions: Pretend your hypothesis fits in the places where science doesn't have the answer, you lack understanding, and/or where the question is wrong, (and, by golly, if only scientists weren't so arrogant, they'd see it too!)

P.S. I was woo positive in the past too. With logic, persistence, and a great heap of skepticality (thanks, in part, to Randi), I've been fully cured for many years.

 

[hammegk]

If really pushed, I think most folks who identify themselves as either physicalists or materialists would readily admit that they begin with an assumption.

Ya think? I sure haven't seen that here.

The same should be true of idealists. I can't think of any philosophical system that doesn't begin with an assumption of some sort.

Indeed.

I, personally, begin assuming monism and don't particularly care which one is correct.

That is one approach. I don't like the first corollary physicalism/materialism carries, so I don't choose it. YMMV.

The truly laughable part seen here is the belief that science requires the choice of physicalism/materialism.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's just a fear reaction, basically. Identified with one belief pattern, opposing beliefs seem threatening. There is such a core of belief that the viewpoint is "mine, mine, mine" that the emotional system of the individual is aroused to deal with the seeming threat. This is does through pre-learned means of doing so, which on this list is usually to ridicule the opposing person or belief. People who ridicule invariably fear ridicule themselves.

What, exactly, are we supposed to be afraid of? You can't even produce a coherent statement of your beliefs.

 

[articulett]

What, exactly, are we supposed to be afraid of? You can't even produce a coherent statement of your beliefs.

That doesn't scare you?

Interesting.

I find it makes me giggly.

 

[PixyMisa]

The truly laughable part seen here is the belief that science requires the choice of physicalism/materialism.

Seen here? Where?

Science requires naturalism.

 

[articulett]

It's as if the woo are always mad at scientist because the scientists never say, "we forgot to look for magic in this situation!"

Because they are convinced their woo is true, they find this a great oversight when it comes to their particular woo, but they understand it just fine when it comes to the woo they don't believe in (e.g. ESP, crystal healing, etc.) The woo always expect others to make special "coddling" exceptions when it comes to their woo, but they never say why or what exactly their woo is or even how it differs from other woo they dismiss as woo.

 

[hammegk]

Pixy, if you haven't noticed naturalism is physicalism/materialism updated with modern bells & whistles, you are a lot slower than I think you are.

 

[articulett]

Seen here? Where?

Science requires naturalism.

Yes, since we can't distinguish the supernatural from the delusional nor imaginary... we can dismiss all such claims with the same brush until or unless evidence manifests.

Why shouldn't we?