Subjectivity and Science

[John Freestone]

the real problem is with philosophers not defining their terms properly.

Yes, from the point of view of the theoretician, the cartographer of reality. However, the real problem is that philosophers sometimes postulate that the definition of terms hampers other modes of understanding, some of which may reveal deeper truths. These territory-exploring views, such as the Buddhist, seek to develop bare attention, "Mindfulness", wherein objects reveal secrets about their (and our) nature unavailable to abstraction, reflection, measurement, etc. Hence, your reply to BDZ that the scientific explanation was not a map of a map, but a map of reality and he has put in an extra level, is moving in the wrong direction: the philosophy I think he is describing takes away the map level. Subject and object are found to be united, or there is no stable subject-personality-ego-soul witnessing separate events, or events are just arising (cf Nick227 on non-duality).

 

[Nick227]

Hmm,

I will try again. While there are concepts, thoughts and the like, there are also the experiences. So , yes, it can help to decouple personal attachment to thoughts and feelings, especialy regarding the notion of the self.

What I am pointing to is this:

Regardless of the ontology it appears that certain thoughts and experiences are limited to the individual bodies.

For example, the memories of a specific event seem to be bounded by an individual body, and while they may be communicated from one to another, they are not shared.

It is not the sense of 'I' that creates this, it appears that there are seperate bodies.

For example, the experiences that are associated with a body seem to be limited to a body, so 'this body' does not see through the eyes of 'that body' when they are sitting next to each other.

It seems to me that you are attempting to construct a justification for objectivity that can exist in non-duality. But you are still proceeding from the assumptions of the objective mindset. There are thoughts, so what? There is a body, so what? There are other bodies, apparently experiencing other thoughts, so what? If none of this has any real, actual sense of identity innate to it, what does it matter?

The motivation to construct the objective mindset lies in the experience of identification. Without identification it could still be constructed, the raw materials are all still present, but where is the motivation? Where is the impelling force?

It is the experience that the thoughts are "your thoughts," and that other thoughts are not, that provides the motivation to construct the objective mindset and interpret reality through it.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

It's actually the exact opposite of time travel. Time travel is logically possible, but physically impossible. Experiencing another person's experience is, depending on the definitions you are using, either physically possible or logically impossible.

Like HPC and the Mary thingy, the real problem is with philosophers not defining their terms properly.

The real problem is that philosophers sometimes intentionally avoid defining terms, to give them some wiggle room when they are slipping into blatant illogic.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, from the point of view of the theoretician, the cartographer of reality. However, the real problem is that philosophers sometimes postulate that the definition of terms hampers other modes of understanding, some of which may reveal deeper truths.

Those aren't philosophers. They're idiots.

These territory-exploring views, such as the Buddhist, seek to develop bare attention, "Mindfulness", wherein objects reveal secrets about their (and our) nature unavailable to abstraction, reflection, measurement, etc.

Yeah, and that works sooo well, doesn't it?

Hence, your reply to BDZ that the scientific explanation was not a map of a map, but a map of reality and he has put in an extra level, is moving in the wrong direction: the philosophy I think he is describing takes away the map level.

Maybe he thinks that's what he's doing, but what he actually describes, once you take away the waffle, is materialism.

Subject and object are found to be united, or there is no stable subject-personality-ego-soul witnessing separate events, or events are just arising (cf Nick227 on non-duality).

That doesn't mean anything.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Maybe he thinks that's what he's doing, but what he actually describes, once you take away the waffle, is materialism.

Properly speaking I think we could all say that what he is describing is monism. All monism must look the same, but folks seem to want to endow the ur-substance with some character and call it 'matter' or 'thought' or 'neutral'. I think BDZ, to use Western philosophy again, is going after Anaximander's definition -- the 'undefinable, or unlimited'.

Really, it doesn't matter since we must all be describing the same stuff, whatever the hell it is. So, in a way, yes, he is describing materialism, but I think he would say that stopping at matter is too limiting. For practical purposes, though, it amounts to the same thing.

All science can do is describe the rules by which the ur-substance works, not get to the heart of what it really is. So, what difference does it make what label we put on it?

 

[John Freestone]

That's what I figure too, which is why I'm having a nigh on impossible time accepting that science could be considered a belief system.

That is a belief. The problem you're having is that you (like most people, and almost everyone in our rationalist disembodied culture) haven't stopped thinking long enough to find something in your experience that you recognise as a fact, independent of belief. It's not easy; the mind takes quite some taming. If you sit and concentrate on your breathing, for instance, you can settle into reality deeply enough to notice it (yes - reality is actually here!), but for a long time you'll be thinking:- "Yes, I'm breathing. So what. That's because I'm a human being with lungs and I'm alive and that's what they do...God this is stupid and boring...they must be 'king mad these meditators...what on earth does he mean reality is actually here?...we discover reality with science...that's a basic fact of life...woovicles!...that's funny...is it tea time yet?..."

Or looking at an object is good - an orange or something. Trying just to see and not think. I remember my first attempts. It feels like someone's told you to take part in a seance or something. Utter garbage. But with patience and practice, it's like the magic eye pictures, (a 3D experience is folded in 2D) - except you're kind of removing dimensions.

Revisiting Pixy's question: "Yes, but does it do anything?" Read almost any Buddhist treatise, and you'll find that "Clear Comprehension" (following from Mindfulness or Bare Attention) is put forward as the only solution for humanity's suffering, since it dissolves greed, hatred and ignorance. Michio Kaku suggests that a fusion reactor would end human conflict by producing unlimited free energy.

 

[PixyMisa]

Properly speaking I think we could all say that what he is describing is monism. All monism must look the same, but folks seem to want to endow the ur-substance with some character and call it 'matter' or 'thought' or 'neutral'. I think BDZ, to use Western philosophy again, is going after Anaximander's definition -- the 'undefinable, or unlimited'.

Not a concept I find particularly useful. If it interacts with other stuff, we define it by its interactions. If it doesn't interact, it cannot be meaningfully said to exist.

Really, it doesn't matter since we must all be describing the same stuff, whatever the hell it is. So, in a way, yes, he is describing materialism, but I think he would say that stopping at matter is too limiting.

Problem there is that his notion of matter is stuck in the 16th century. Possibly the 16th century BC.

For practical purposes, though, it amounts to the same thing.

Absolutely.

You can call it physicalism - identical to materialism in all respects; only the name has changed. You can call it naturalism - materialist behaviourism. You can construct idealist ontologies that are also outwardly identical to materialism.

What BDZ is doing, though, is saying "OMG, materialists are teh dummies! Here's my l33t new framework!" And comes up with something which, once you decode his turgid, insult-sprinkled writing, is isomorphic to materialism.

All science can do is describe the rules by which the ur-substance works, not get to the heart of what it really is. So, what difference does it make what label we put on it?

It doesn't. The reason I keep correcting BDZ, and Nick and Martillo and John, and previously Interesting Ian and Undercover Elephant and Hammegk, is that they think this makes a difference.

As you say:

Really, it doesn't matter since we must all be describing the same stuff, whatever the hell it is.

Interesting Ian believes in reincarnation.

Nick believes that the world is ruled by a shadowy cabal of immortal alchemists.

This isn't just metaphysical nitpickery; this is serious woo.

BDZ hasn't said he believes in any such thing, but he feels compelled to tell everyone they are wrong anyway.

Martillo likewise.

John, so far, seems far less dogmatic and more open to understanding other's views and criticism of his ideas, so kudos to him for that.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is a belief. The problem you're having is that you (like most people, and almost everyone in our rationalist disembodied culture) haven't stopped thinking long enough to find something in your experience that you recognise as a fact, independent of belief.

No, that is not the problem.

It's not easy; the mind takes quite some taming. If you sit and concentrate on your breathing, for instance, you can settle into reality deeply enough to notice it (yes - reality is actually here!), but for a long time you'll be thinking:- "Yes, I'm breathing. So what. That's because I'm a human being with lungs and I'm alive and that's what they do...God this is stupid and boring...they must be 'king mad these meditators...what on earth does he mean reality is actually here?...we discover reality with science...that's a basic fact of life...woovicles!...that's funny...is it tea time yet?..."

Which tells us nothing.

Or looking at an object is good - an orange or something. Trying just to see and not think. I remember my first attempts. It feels like someone's told you to take part in a seance or something. Utter garbage. But with patience and practice, it's like the magic eye pictures, (a 3D experience is folded in 2D) - except you're kind of removing dimensions.

Which also tells us nothing.

Revisiting Pixy's question: "Yes, but does it do anything?" Read almost any Buddhist treatise, and you'll find that "Clear Comprehension" (following from Mindfulness or Bare Attention) is put forward as the only solution for humanity's suffering, since it dissolves greed, hatred and ignorance.

Yes. And how is that working out for them? Oh, it's completely ineffective, you say? How about that!

Michio Kaku suggests that a fusion reactor would end human conflict by producing unlimited free energy.

Really? How odd.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Here's a thought as relates to monisms.........

We define words in only one way -- in relation to other words, other concepts. So, what do we do with the ultimate substance of the universe? We can't define it in relation to anything because it is everything.

We can label it for convenience sake, but that's it. There is no further step to be taken except to describe through science how it acts.

So, can we stop all the materialism, idealism crap and move onto something more productive?

Like winning Powerball.

 

[John Freestone]

Quote:

Subject and object are found to be united, or there is no stable subject-personality-ego-soul witnessing separate events, or events are just arising (cf Nick227 on non-duality).

That doesn't mean anything.

That's right.

 

[John Freestone]

Yes. And how is that working out for them? Oh, it's completely ineffective, you say? How about that!

Hard to know what the world would be like without the great spiritual teachers, but you're confusing unfinished progress with failure. The point is (assuming that the philosophy is correct, which I think I've gathered you don't), there is no other solution available. One hindrance is the tendency to dismiss it as woo without testing it. If it's right, that is in fact the only hindrance.

 

[John Freestone]

Here's a thought as relates to monisms.........

We define words in only one way -- in relation to other words, other concepts. So, what do we do with the ultimate substance of the universe? We can't define it in relation to anything because it is everything.

We can label it for convenience sake, but that's it. There is no further step to be taken except to describe through science how it acts.

So, can we stop all the materialism, idealism crap and move onto something more productive?

Like winning Powerball.

Good idea. Good luck. I'm off to search for pixies. Report later.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hard to know what the world would be like without the great spiritual teachers, but you're confusing unfinished progress with failure.

Um, what progress have they made?

The point is (assuming that the philosophy is correct, which I think I've gathered you don't)

It's not so much that the philosophy is wrong, as that they cannot produce a coherent definition of their beliefs.

there is no other solution available.

There is no solution available.

There is one thing that we know dissolves greed, hatred, and ignorance. However, it also dissolves charity, love, and understanding. And everything else.

Not a real win, in my opinion.

One hindrance is the tendency to dismiss it as woo without testing it. If it's right, that is in fact the only hindrance.

Test it? We'd love to test it! First, produce a coherent operational definition. Then we can construct a test. And then we'll see.

 

[69dodge]

Revisiting Pixy's question: "Yes, but does it do anything?" Read almost any Buddhist treatise, and you'll find that "Clear Comprehension" (following from Mindfulness or Bare Attention) is put forward as the only solution for humanity's suffering, since it dissolves greed, hatred and ignorance.

I've never meditated, so I don't know. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it does those good things. Still, what has that got to do with whether consciousness is due solely to brain activity, or in general with whether science is basically the right approach to understanding the world? Why couldn't meditation dissolve greed and hatred anyway, even if meditators weren't in touch with any deeper reality but rather were simply having a particular sort of experience, due, as are all other experiences, to brain activity of one kind or another? I don't see the connection at all.

 

[69dodge]

Yes. And how is that working out for them? Oh, it's completely ineffective, you say? How about that!

Well. Be fair. Presumably it can be expected to work only if everyone does it, not just them.

 

[hammegk]

The reason I keep correcting BDZ, and Nick and Martillo and John, and previously Interesting Ian and Undercover Elephant and Hammegk, is that they think this makes a difference.

One difference it makes is the ability to allow other people to have ideas different than yours.

John, so far, seems far less dogmatic and more open to understanding other's views and criticism of his ideas, so kudos to him for that.

The casual, and not so casual readers will make up their own minds as to which side of this debate will be furnishing members of the next Spanish Inquisition to root out heretics.

I see you and the scientifically literate of your mindset, abetted by the choir of Articuletts, with the tongs and hot irons; not BDZ, and Nick and Martillo and John, and Interesting Ian and Undercover Elephant and Hammegk (and me).

The primary catechism appears to be: I Believe In Evolution; Only Matter Exists. (And god does not.)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hence, your reply to BDZ that the scientific explanation was not a map of a map, but a map of reality and he has put in an extra level, is moving in the wrong direction: the philosophy I think he is describing takes away the map level. Subject and object are found to be united, or there is no stable subject-personality-ego-soul witnessing separate events, or events are just arising (cf Nick227 on non-duality).

That's correct. But this is very difficult step. I can't really blame people like Pixy when they don't get it. They are accustomed to think in maps and territories, and forget that they naively assume that there is always a real, concrete territory, that we are cartographers and that every map is more real than the previous ones.

In other words, they are as naive as any other woo.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Science explains our origins better than anything else.

Science explains, science explains.

No.

Using science to make tests, our theoretical framework attempt to describe our origins. Their success, or lack of, depends on the number of concepts fitting observations and relational evidence. So far naturalism is the most encompassing of such TFs

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Properly speaking I think we could all say that what he is describing is monism. All monism must look the same, but folks seem to want to endow the ur-substance with some character and call it 'matter' or 'thought' or 'neutral'. I think BDZ, to use Western philosophy again, is going after Anaximander's definition -- the 'undefinable, or unlimited'.

Exactly. This (naive) necessity of "knowing" the ultimate component of reality, I insist, stinks I'm woo all the way. What's wrong with admitting that our descriptive models END IN US? That the undefinable (tao, noumena, whatever) is behind them?

We can't know the WHAT so we should be happy with a completely neutral word. A neologism works, a common word (like god or materialism) don't.

Really, it doesn't matter since we must all be describing the same stuff, whatever the hell it is. So, in a way, yes, he is describing materialism, but I think he would say that stopping at matter is too limiting. For practical purposes, though, it amounts to the same thing.

Agreed, for practical purposes is the same thing, but in a conceptual level one is far less woo.

All science can do is describe the rules by which the ur-substance works, not get to the heart of what it really is. So, what difference does it make what label we put on it?

In the end? absolutely nothing, but at least I'm perfectly comfortable calling the apples apples and the unknown unknown.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Not a concept I find particularly useful. If it interacts with other stuff, we define it by its interactions. If it doesn't interact, it cannot be meaningfully said to exist.

Are you emotionally attached to the word "materialism"? You have recognized that what matters is the facts, and facts are facts, independent of beliefs. If it doesn't matter what we believe, it matters even less how we call them, they are what they are whatever the name we label them with.

Now, "materialism" is old, better terminology exists. That's why I choose the later, we are in a skeptical forum after all.

Problem there is that his notion of matter is stuck in the 16th century. Possibly the 16th century BC.

No. This is convenient for you to think. Lets take a dictionary definition NOT mine.

"Materialism. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter."

That is what is 16th century, where you are trapped.

You can call it physicalism - identical to materialism in all respects; only the name has changed.

Wrong. Again.

"Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles. Some philosophers use the term "materialism" to denote descriptions based on the motions of matter and "physicalism" for descriptions based on matter and world geometry (see: Stoljar 2001)."

Deal with it.

What BDZ is doing, though, is saying "OMG, materialists are teh dummies! Here's my l33t new framework!" And comes up with something which, once you decode his turgid, insult-sprinkled writing, is isomorphic to materialism.

Yet, it is named different, and this alone have some implications, for instance, its less wooish.

BDZ hasn't said he believes in any such thing, but he feels compelled to tell everyone they are wrong anyway.

Not everyone, just normal woos, pseudo skeptics and naive materialists.