Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

[davidsmith73]

hammegk,



I am claiming only that those aspects of consciousness which I know exist (thought, memory, awareness, etc...) are brain processes. That is a scientific claim, not a metaphysical one. And it is well supported by scientific evidence.

No, its a claim based on metaphysics. Specifically, that the experiences you base your evidence on are reference to an objective reality and not merely more experiences. After our long debate you surely can't have forgotton this !

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

We are going around in circles here. Could you just clearly state, once and for all, whether you believe there is more to reality than just your experiences?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This depends on our meaning of "me" and "you". I've tried to address this further down.

Are you serious?

So all of consciousness is contained within a single experience? You are not making any sense here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think about what this means in terms of familar concepts. In your view, all of objective reality must be expressed through any aspect of it. The behaviour of an electron or a planet must be an expression of the singular fundamental objective realm of reality. If it were not then the electron would be excluded from this realm.

The same goes for any expression of Consciousness.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Stimpy: When you use the term "consciousness" to refer to the totality of existence, and then claim that because you have arbitrarily decided to call reality "consciousness" that this somehow makes that reality non-objective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

objectivity = a thing existing in the absence of an experience of that thing.

Consciousness (and therefore any experience) cannot exist in the absence of an experience of it by (my) definition because any experience is an expression of Consciousness.

Thus Consciousness is not objective with respect to the above definition.

That doesn't make any sense. Reality is objective if there is more to it than just your experiences. If I have experiences, and those experiences are not your experiences, then my experiences objectively exist. Likewise, since you have experiences which are not my own experiences, I would have to say that your experiences objectively exist.

In other words, once you accept that other consciousnesses do exist, and are not just figments of your own imagination, those consciousnesses objectively exist. And since you must acknowledge that from their point of view, your own consciousness objectively exists, you must accept that your own consciousness, and indeed your own experiences, are part of objective reality.

Any fact about reality that you do not already know, must necessarily be something which you have not experienced. If all that exists is your experiences, then you have experienced the totality of existence. What is left for you to know?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know

So much for your ridiculous assertion that science can function without the assumption of objectivity.

Even if you assume that all that exists is experiences, as soon as you assume that there are experiences which are not your experiences, you are assuming an objective reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree. For something to be objective it must exist in the absence of an experience of it.

You keep using that word "experience", as though it were some singular thing. What are you talking about? If you are talking about more than just your own experiences, then your definition of "experience" already assumes objectivity!

The temporal and spatial location of these experiences do not exist in an objective sense just like any of my experiences do not really exist in time or space. Consciousness does not have spatial or temporal properties. Remember that "I" or "you" has two very different meanings; the physical body and the feeling of the self. In my view, both are an experience and are thus subject to the same metaphysic as any other experience.

What is this nonsense? Do you have any evidence for this insane assertion? Of course experiences are spatiotemporal!

The difference is that in the first case, there can be more to consciousness than just experiences, and in the second case, there cannot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You would not say that there can be more to objective reality than is expressed through an aspect of it such as an electron. On the other hand you would say that objective reality consists only of its expressed aspects.

What is your point?

Me: I have absolute knowledge of the nature of redness. That is what I mean when something can be truly known to exist.

Stimpy: Double wow. You really are a solipsist, aren't you? Amazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What has my definition of true knowledge have to do with solipsism ?

The fact that you consider knowledge to be unobtainable. Once again, this makes a mockery of your prior assertion that science does not require objectivity. In your desperate attempt to come up with some sort of validation for your subjective reality hypothesis, you have rendered the concept of knowledge completely meaningless.

I don't even know what it is you are trying to claim anymore.

Let's back up here, in order to avoid any confusion.

Given the following definition of objective (clarified, so as to avoid any ambiguity, or misleading language):

Reality is objective if there is more to it than just your experiences.

Would you agree that reality is objective?

Would you agree that objective reality is a necessary assumption of science?

If not, why not?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

What are you talking about? What questions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does the universe exist?

I don't know. Neither do you. Nobody does.

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe?

The evidence clearly indicates that we are not. The evidence could be wrong, but there is currently no reason to think it is, and plenty of very good reasons to think it is not.

Did the universe really exist before you started looking at it ?

According to my Mom, it did.

Mmm, there's quite a few you seem to have missed.

What are you talking about?

So this is what you are reduced to? You can't address my arguments, so instead you insinuate that I am close-minded, and afraid to acknowledge the possibility that your silly religious beliefs might be true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Touched a nerve. Intriguing.

Don't kid yourself. It takes a lot more than an ignorant arm-chair philosopher projecting his own fears and inadequacies onto me, to get me worked up.

I am claiming only that those aspects of consciousness which I know exist (thought, memory, awareness, etc...) are brain processes. That is a scientific claim, not a metaphysical one. And it is well supported by scientific evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, its a claim based on metaphysics. Specifically, that the experiences you base your evidence on are reference to an objective reality and not merely more experiences.

What "more experiences"? More experiences than just my experiences? If so, then clearly they objectively exist.

After our long debate you surely can't have forgotton this !

Forgotten what? That you are incapable of understanding that your very assumption that an experiential reality, of which your own experiences are merely a subset, is an assumption of an objective reality?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

The fact remains that it is a necessary epistemological position for the construction of the scientific method. It is an assumption about the nature of our observations, not about something completely unknowable.

I simply point out that neither materialism or naturalism have to be true in order for the progress of science to take place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an epistemological position,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No this is not correct. If there is a world in abstraction from our perceptions of it, we could never know it. It is an ontological commitment you are making here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is where you are wrong. The above claim, that we could never know such a world, is an epistemological position. The claim that we can know about such a world is also an epistemological position. This is exactly the point of the scientific method.

The point is that the assertion of a reality existing in abstraction of any conscious awareness is a ontological position. Why do I ned to keep repeating myself?? Please take note of what I say and try to understand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, if the physical does not have primary reality then the inherent reasonable position that we cease to exist when we die can no longer be maintained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If we do not make any metaphysical assumptions about ontological primacy, and instead rely on science to reveal the logical relationships between consciousness and other stuff, then the hypothesis that our minds cease to exist when we die is clearly well-supported by the empirical evidence.

Only by making the metaphysical presumption that consciousness itself is a physical thing. Science per se does not suggest that consciousness ceases to exist. Given that the world is physically closed, how could it since consciousness cannot be detected or inferred? If consciousness can play no role in our scientific theories it certainly can't declare it ceases to exist when the brain stops functioning!

Human consciousness is pretty clearly a physical process in the brain.

Nothing you or anyone else has ever said, remotely suggests this.

So what's the problem then? Why make any metaphysical assumptions about role of consciousness in reality? Why not simply leave it up to science to determine what its role is?

Because consciousness is outside the purview of science. Science in principle can never explain consciousness. To maintain otherwise is to misunderstand the nature and scope of science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for primacy, I only claim that consciousness does not appear to be necessary for reality to exist,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone ever experienced reality in the absence of conscious awareness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That question is meaningless.

Not at all. Either reality can be experienced in the absence of conscious awareness or it can't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know reality through experiencing it. We cannot know an unexperienced reality exists because one cannot experience an unexperienced reality, by definition. So if we only know a experienced reality exists, and experiences require consciousness, this means that, contrary to what you claim, we can only know about a reality which requires the conscious perception of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That does not follow at all. The fact that our only source of knowledge about reality is through our experiences, in no way implies that the existence of reality ontologically depends on our experiences.

I of course never claimed this. Read what I said more carefully. A reality in abstraction from consciousness is unknowable. I didn't say it necessarily therefore doesn't exist. But in supposing it exists you are at the very minimum making a massive ontological leap of faith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
based on the evidence that reality existed long before any people did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how do you know that the past was determined rather than existing in a superposition of possible states?
http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That link is philosophical nonsense, not science.

Science cannot be so easily seperated from philosophy. QM suggests that reality, in abstraction from our measurements, is merely a realm of mathematical possibilities, and it is only a measurement which makes one of these possibilities concrete.

It is also irrelevant to the issue. You cannot refute the fact that the Universe has existed longer than people have, without completely throwing out the very idea of scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence do we have that reality, before it enters the consciousness of any sentient being, is a unique concrete determined one? Come on Stimp, let's see all your evidence LOL

 

[Interesting Ian]

Incidentally, this is a really annoying double standard on the part of people like Ian. If I started posting philosophical meanderings of great scientists who agree with my own worldview, and who think Idealism is nonsense, Ian would (rightfully) dismiss them as arguments from authority. But when he finds one physicist whose views seem, at least superficially, to be in some sort of alignment with his own, he uses it to claim that "QM is suggestive of Idealism".

You have stated that there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that even before any consciousness arose, the past existed in a unique determined concrete sense. I'm wondering what this evidence might conceivably be? So first of all answer this question please.

I would in fact suggest the scientific evidence suggests quite the converse. If QM applies to the macroscopic realm as well as the microscopic (and why on earth should anyone suppose otherwise?), I'm curious as to how a 'un-collapsed' wave-function representing the Universe as a whole can be reconciled with a unique concrete determined past??

Now I find a materialist atheist physicist agrees with me. It seemed appropriate that to pre-empt your inevitable charge that I don't know what I'm talking about, to point out that many eminent physicists agree with me.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

The fact remains that it is a necessary epistemological position for the construction of the scientific method. It is an assumption about the nature of our observations, not about something completely unknowable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I simply point out that neither materialism or naturalism have to be true in order for the progress of science to take place.

True, but the fact that the progress of science does take place, constitutes supporting evidence for naturalism.

That is where you are wrong. The above claim, that we could never know such a world, is an epistemological position. The claim that we can know about such a world is also an epistemological position. This is exactly the point of the scientific method.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is that the assertion of a reality existing in abstraction of any conscious awareness is a ontological position. Why do I ned to keep repeating myself?? Please take note of what I say and try to understand.

If that is how you define "ontological", then fine, it is ontological. Who cares? The point is that it is an epistemological position, about something which is knowable, rather than blind speculation about something unknowable.

If we do not make any metaphysical assumptions about ontological primacy, and instead rely on science to reveal the logical relationships between consciousness and other stuff, then the hypothesis that our minds cease to exist when we die is clearly well-supported by the empirical evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only by making the metaphysical presumption that consciousness itself is a physical thing.

What do you mean by physical? If you mean that it has some effect on other observable things, then that is a direct observation. If you mean that it can be described scientifically, then that is an assumption of naturalism, and as I already pointed out, an epistemological assumption, not a metaphysical one.

If you are talking about it being some sort of "physical substance" as per ontological materialism, then this assumption is not required at all for our scientific evidence that consciousness is a brain process.

Science per se does not suggest that consciousness ceases to exist. Given that the world is physically closed, how could it since consciousness cannot be detected or inferred? If consciousness can play no role in our scientific theories it certainly can't declare it ceases to exist when the brain stops functioning!

Here we go again. Please provide some evidence for your assertion that consciousness, which clearly plays an observable role in the physical world, cannot be detected or inferred, and cannot play any role in scientific theories. That is epiphenomenalism, which neither of us is defending.

Fact: Consciousness has an effect on the observable world.

Fact: Naturalism holds that all observable effects can be explained scientifically.

This means that either consciousness can be explained scientifically, or naturalism is false. If you are claiming that consciousness cannot be explained scientifically, then provide your evidence that this is true.

Human consciousness is pretty clearly a physical process in the brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing you or anyone else has ever said, remotely suggests this.

Burying your head in the sand and chanting "I won't believe it" isn't going to make it go away.

So what's the problem then? Why make any metaphysical assumptions about role of consciousness in reality? Why not simply leave it up to science to determine what its role is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because consciousness is outside the purview of science. Science in principle can never explain consciousness. To maintain otherwise is to misunderstand the nature and scope of science.

To claim it cannot is to claim that science is invalid, and that its premises are false.

I am afraid I am going to need to see some kind of evidence for that before I believe it.

That does not follow at all. The fact that our only source of knowledge about reality is through our experiences, in no way implies that the existence of reality ontologically depends on our experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I of course never claimed this. Read what I said more carefully. A reality in abstraction from consciousness is unknowable.

Wrong. It is only unknowable if you do not assume that there is a logical connection between objective reality and our experiences. That there is, and more specifically that this relationship allows us to extract information about objective reality from our experiences, is the basis of science!

I didn't say it necessarily therefore doesn't exist. But in supposing it exists you are at the very minimum making a massive ontological leap of faith.

No faith is involved. As I already explained, several times, the premises of the scientific method, of which objectivity is one, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis. The success of the scientific method is supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the premises of the scientific method are valid.

Evidence, not faith.

That link is philosophical nonsense, not science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science cannot be so easily seperated from philosophy.

Science is derived from philosophy, but not all philosophy is science. The philosophical speculation on that linked page is not science. It is metaphysical nonsense.

QM suggests that reality, in abstraction from our measurements, is merely a realm of mathematical possibilities, and it is only a measurement which makes one of these possibilities concrete.

QM suggests nothing of the sort. You don't know what you are talking about. You are just repeating what somebody else told you. We both know that you have no actual understanding of QM.

It is also irrelevant to the issue. You cannot refute the fact that the Universe has existed longer than people have, without completely throwing out the very idea of scientific evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What scientific evidence do we have that reality, before it enters the consciousness of any sentient being, is a unique concrete determined one? Come on Stimp, let's see all your evidence LOL

We have supporting evidence for the falsifiable hypothesis that the universe has existed for billions of years. The appeal to QM to try to claim that the past is indeterminant is nothing more than a fancy rehashing of the old "how do you know the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago?" nonsense.

A tree that falls down in the woods when nobody is around really does make a sound, Ian. You don't need to take that on faith. You just need to abandon the silly notion that the entire universe is here for your benefit.

You have stated that there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that even before any consciousness arose, the past existed in a unique determined concrete sense. I'm wondering what this evidence might conceivably be? So first of all answer this question please.

I didn't say that. What I said is that there is evidence that the Universe existed long before human consciousness did. The above is unfalsifiable metaphysical nonsense.

I would in fact suggest the scientific evidence suggests quite the converse. If QM applies to the macroscopic realm as well as the microscopic (and why on earth should anyone suppose otherwise?), I'm curious as to how a 'un-collapsed' wave-function representing the Universe as a whole can be reconciled with a unique concrete determined past??

Where is your evidence that human consciousness is required to collapse the wave-function? For that matter, where is your evidence that the wave-function is anything more than a useful mathematical tool for describing our observations? You are referring to a metaphysical interpretation of QM as though it were the actual scientific theory. It is not.

Now I find a materialist atheist physicist agrees with me. It seemed appropriate that to pre-empt your inevitable charge that I don't know what I'm talking about, to point out that many eminent physicists agree with me.

Wheeler is not a materialist, either in the sense that you define the term, or in the sense that I do. I have no idea whether he is an atheist or not. Furthermore, I doubt very much that Wheeler "agrees with you". You may find nuggets of what he says that you think you understand, and that seem to be in agreement with your own views, but I suspect that if you explained your views to him (particularly your view that consciousness cannot be scientifically explained), that he would he would tell you that your position is incoherent and irrational.

And even if he did agree with you, one is not many.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Loki]

Stimpy,

You have amazing stamina!

 

[a_unique_person]

Whew. Glad THAT'S all settled now.

So this is all your fault.

 

[Dancing David]

You only know about the history of the electron through experience. Descriptive theories are constructed from our experiences therefore the concept of the electron traveling through space/time before your perception of it is a constructed fiction.

Perhaps you need glasses dude, your consiousness has trouble distinguishing photon from electron.

I perceive light because photons interact with the receptors in my eye, this is a very string theory that is borm out by the repition and experience of repition in the scientific sense.

Can you tell how elese that you see colors Mr. Smith? Any theory you propose will require the existance of the 'objective' medium through which information is converyed to the sense organs.

You are not going to make the claim that your percioeve without sense organs, are you?

 

[hammegk]

You are not going to make the claim that your percioeve without sense organs, are you?

Yes(kinda). The first thing *I* perceive is that I inhabit a body *me* equiped with a bunch of sensory equipment. I'd call the sense organ "consciousness".

I am claiming only that those aspects of consciousness which I know exist (thought, memory, awareness, etc...) are brain processes. That is a scientific claim, not a metaphysical one. And it is well supported by scientific evidence.

Yup. Everything *me* supplies.

And I have no idea what you mean by "life vs non-life". There is no clear distinction between life and non-life. The line is arbitrary, and no matter where you put it, you will probably be able to find something that lies close enough to the boundary to render the distinction ambiguous.

One way to look at it, it's the distinction between *I* & *me*.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

I am claiming only that those aspects of consciousness which I know exist (thought, memory, awareness, etc...) are brain processes. That is a scientific claim, not a metaphysical one. And it is well supported by scientific evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup. Everything *me* supplies.

What more are you claiming that there is to consciousness?

And I have no idea what you mean by "life vs non-life". There is no clear distinction between life and non-life. The line is arbitrary, and no matter where you put it, you will probably be able to find something that lies close enough to the boundary to render the distinction ambiguous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One way to look at it, it's the distinction between *I* & *me*.

What are you talking about?

What does consciousness have to do with the distinction between life and non-life? Most forms of life do not have any consciousness at all! Even among the animal kingdom, only a small percentage of animal species have advanced enough nervous systems for anything like consciousness to exist.

And if you are going to claim that things like plants and bacteria are conscious, even though they exhibit no indication of it whatsoever, then why not claim that rocks and cars are conscious too?


Dr. Stupid

 

[davidsmith73]

davidsmith,


Me: Think about what this means in terms of familar concepts. In your view, all of objective reality must be expressed through any aspect of it. The behaviour of an electron or a planet must be an expression of the singular fundamental objective realm of reality. If it were not then the electron would be excluded from this realm.

The same goes for any expression of Consciousness.

Stimpy: I have no idea what you are trying to say here. [/QUOTE]



Well maybe that is why we are going round in circles. If you can't even understand how parts of your proposed objective reality must be expressions of the whole then we are stuck.

I'll try once more. In materialist mode, lets take the behaviour we call an electron. The electron objectively exists. In other words it exists regardless of whether it is experienced. Objective reality is the underlying reality than pervades all things/processes we label as objective, eg, electrons, rocks, living things etc. It has to if you are following a truly monistic concept of reality. If this underlying objective reality did not completely pervade all things we observe as objective then part or all of those things would be outside this objective realm. In other words you would have a dualistic reality.

The same goes for the realm of Consciousness. Consciousness must pervade all individual experiences. In this sense there is nothing more to reality than what is contained within any experience.

Me: objectivity = a thing existing in the absence of an experience of that thing. Consciousness (and therefore any experience) cannot exist in the absence of an experience of it by (my) definition because any experience is an expression of Consciousness. Thus Consciousness is not objective with respect to the above definition.


Stimpy: That doesn't make any sense. Reality is objective if there is more to it than just your experiences.

I don't agree with this definition. There is a difference between that definition and the one I was using which defines objectivity to be the existence of a thing in the absence of an experience of that thing.

If I have experiences, and those experiences are not your experiences, then my experiences objectively exist.

Likewise, since you have experiences which are not my own experiences, I would have to say that your experiences objectively exist.

In other words, once you accept that other consciousnesses do exist, and are not just figments of your own imagination, those consciousnesses objectively exist. And since you must acknowledge that from their point of view, your own consciousness objectively exists, you must accept that your own consciousness, and indeed your own experiences, are part of objective reality.

Other "consciousnesses" are merely other experiences. Since these experiences would not exist in the absence of an experiences of them they cannot be regarded as objective.

"I" (in the illusionary physical body sense) am constantly changing my physical and temporal location. This does not mean that the experiences that correlate with one particular physical location in spacetime are objectively separate from those that correlate with another spacetime location. In this sense there is nothing to distinguish my experiences from the proposed existence of other experience occuring in different spacetime locations (which could be me or you) regardless of whether they are correlated with my physical body or yours.

So if you are saying that objectivity is "something more than just my experiences" then that is a meaningless distinction when applied to what I am actually saying.

So much for your ridiculous assertion that science can function without the assumption of objectivity.

That was just a little joke. I still say that science can function without the assumption of objectivity. The definition of what kind of knowledge science gives us would have to change.

You keep using that word "experience", as though it were some singular thing. What are you talking about?

The singular thing of Experience is the single realm of reality. Surely you are familiar with the concept of monism ! I thought you were a seasoned materialistic monist ?

If you are talking about more than just your own experiences, then your definition of "experience" already assumes objectivity!

Well, it seems we are talking about a different meaning to the word objective. Your definition, as I have explained above, is meaningless with regards to my view. There is an important difference between saying objectivity is something more than just your own experiences and saying that objectivity is the existence of something in the absence of an experience of it.

What is this nonsense? Do you have any evidence for this insane assertion? Of course experiences are spatiotemporal!

So where are they ?

Me:You would not say that there can be more to objective reality than is expressed through an aspect of it such as an electron. On the other hand you would say that objective reality consists only of its expressed aspects

Stimpy: What is your point?

Your assertion about the difference between saying that all experiences are a subset of consciousness, and that consciousness consists only of experiences is not valid when addressing a monistic philosophy.

The fact that you consider knowledge to be unobtainable.
Once again, this makes a mockery of your prior assertion that science does not require objectivity. In your desperate attempt to come up with some sort of validation for your subjective reality hypothesis, you have rendered the concept of knowledge completely meaningless.

No. I have never said knowledge is unobtainable. The models that describe the relationships between our experiences are still obtainable through science. Its just that this would not relate to objective knowledge. It would be knowledge about the relationships between certain experiences. So the concept of scientific knowledge is not rendered meaningless, it has just changed its meaning.

I don't even know what it is you are trying to claim anymore.

Thats because you haven't thought long enough about what I am saying.

Let's back up here, in order to avoid any confusion.

Given the following definition of objective (clarified, so as to avoid any ambiguity, or misleading language):

Reality is objective if there is more to it than just your experiences.

Don't agree with this definition.

How about this:

Reality is objective if it exists in the absense of experience

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

Well maybe that is why we are going round in circles. If you can't even understand how parts of your proposed objective reality must be expressions of the whole then we are stuck.

I'll try once more. In materialist mode, lets take the behaviour we call an electron. The electron objectively exists. In other words it exists regardless of whether it is experienced. Objective reality is the underlying reality than pervades all things/processes we label as objective, eg, electrons, rocks, living things etc. It has to if you are following a truly monistic concept of reality. If this underlying objective reality did not completely pervade all things we observe as objective then part or all of those things would be outside this objective realm. In other words you would have a dualistic reality.

I understand that just fine.

What I don't understand is this:

The same goes for the realm of Consciousness. Consciousness must pervade all individual experiences. In this sense there is nothing more to reality than what is contained within any experience.

That does not follow. You are making the leap from the statement that all experiences are part of consciousness, to the statement that consciousness consists only of experiences.

Stimpy: That doesn't make any sense. Reality is objective if there is more to it than just your experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree with this definition. There is a difference between that definition and the one I was using which defines objectivity to be the existence of a thing in the absence of an experience of that thing.

So what? The only difference is that your definition allows for there to be experiences other than your own. I am simply saying that under my definition of objective, those other experiences objectively exist.

What difference does an arbitrary definition make? The point is that the scientific method depends on the assumption of objectivity as I have defined it. That is the only assumption of objectivity I make. Like I said, I do not assume what the nature of objective reality is. I leave that up to science to determine.

Other "consciousnesses" are merely other experiences. Since these experiences would not exist in the absence of an experiences of them they cannot be regarded as objective.

This is exactly why your definition of objective is completely pointless. You are saying that, by definition, experiences are not objective. This is not a statement about the nature of experiences, or their relationship to everything else. Your definition amounts to nothing more than "anything that isn't an experience is objective".

You are still assuming that there is more to reality than just your experiences. Call that whatever you want.

"I" (in the illusionary physical body sense) am constantly changing my physical and temporal location. This does not mean that the experiences that correlate with one particular physical location in spacetime are objectively separate from those that correlate with another spacetime location. In this sense there is nothing to distinguish my experiences from the proposed existence of other experience occuring in different spacetime locations (which could be me or you) regardless of whether they are correlated with my physical body or yours.

There is one very important distinction. Your experiences are only the ones which you are having, regardless of the mechanism.

So if you are saying that objectivity is "something more than just my experiences" then that is a meaningless distinction when applied to what I am actually saying.

It is not meaningless unless you are going to claim that my experiences and your experiences are indistinguishable. That is nonsensical.

So much for your ridiculous assertion that science can function without the assumption of objectivity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was just a little joke. I still say that science can function without the assumption of objectivity. The definition of what kind of knowledge science gives us would have to change.

Without objectivity as I have defined it, there would be no knowledge for science to give. Your definition of objectivity is irrelevant to science.

You keep using that word "experience", as though it were some singular thing. What are you talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The singular thing of Experience is the single realm of reality. Surely you are familiar with the concept of monism ! I thought you were a seasoned materialistic monist ?

I am quite familiar with materialistic monism, but I am not one. As for your claim that reality consists of only experiences, what possible logical reason could you have for holding such a position?

If you are talking about more than just your own experiences, then your definition of "experience" already assumes objectivity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it seems we are talking about a different meaning to the word objective. Your definition, as I have explained above, is meaningless with regards to my view. There is an important difference between saying objectivity is something more than just your own experiences and saying that objectivity is the existence of something in the absence of an experience of it.

Well, my definition is the one that is relevant to science, and it was the question of whether science requires the assumption of objectivity to be valid that sparked all of this.

If you are claiming that science can still function in a reality which is objective (as I have defined the term), but in which all that exists is experiences, then I would agree. So what? You are still making more assumptions than I am. You are assuming an experiential monism. I am only assuming that there is more to reality than my experiences.

What is this nonsense? Do you have any evidence for this insane assertion? Of course experiences are spatiotemporal!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where are they ?

They are physical processes occurring in your brain.

Me:You would not say that there can be more to objective reality than is expressed through an aspect of it such as an electron. On the other hand you would say that objective reality consists only of its expressed aspects

Stimpy: What is your point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your assertion about the difference between saying that all experiences are a subset of consciousness, and that consciousness consists only of experiences is not valid when addressing a monistic philosophy.

Of course it is. It would only become invalid if you are claiming that experiences are the monistic substance of which everything is composed. If you are a mental monist, then that still allows for the possibility that there is more to mind than just experiences, because experiences are not the ontological substance, consciousness is. That is the form of Idealism I am familiar with.

Let's back up here, in order to avoid any confusion.

Given the following definition of objective (clarified, so as to avoid any ambiguity, or misleading language):

Reality is objective if there is more to it than just your experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't agree with this definition.

How about this:

Reality is objective if it exists in the absense of experience

How about we quit quibbling about definitions, and get to the point?

1) Do you agree that there must be more to reality than just your experiences, for science to make sense?

2) Do you agree that your form of mental monism makes the assumption that there is more to reality than just your experiences?

3) Do you agree that there are components of your mental monism which must be assumed, which do not have to be assumed in order for science to be valid?

If your answer to the above three questions are all yes, then we are essentially in agreement about everything other than the claim that mental monism is actually true, or a rational position to hold.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

DavidSmith73
objectivity = a thing existing in the absence of an experience of that thing. Consciousness (and therefore any experience) cannot exist in the absence of an experience of it by (my) definition because any experience is an expression of Consciousness. Thus Consciousness is not objective with respect to the above definition.

Hey David! That's brilliant! I'll have to put it in my sig (if you don't mind?).

 

[Interesting Ian]

Stimpy: That doesn't make any sense. Reality is objective if there is more to it than just your experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DavidSmith73
I don't agree with this definition. There is a difference between that definition and the one I was using which defines objectivity to be the existence of a thing in the absence of an experience of that thing.

Absolutely, it is clear that Stimpy doesn't understand what the word objective means.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Absolutely, it is clear that Stimpy doesn't understand what the word objective means.

Why is it that every discussion with you ends up with us disagreeing on a definition, and you insisting that I am using the wrong meaning (as though that were somehow relevant to the actual content of the discussion )?

Could it be because you cannot actually address the content of my position? You know what I mean by objective now. Who cares whether you use the word to mean the same thing or not?

What matters is that my original point, which is that the scientific method requires us to assume that there is more to reality than just our own experiences.

Just look at the nonsensical gymnastics you guys have gone through in your attempt to refute this. You start by saying that my assumption of an external reality (which I clearly explained as meaning that there is more to reality than your own experiences) is not necessary for science. You then made no objection when I referred to this as an assumption of objective reality. Then, when I explained why an external reality is, in fact, necessary for science, you start whining that this isn't what "objective" means!

Who cares what the damn word means! It is just a word. It means whatever you define it to mean. What is important is the content of my position. Can you actually address that content, or are you just going to keep playing meaningless word games, and avoiding the issue?


Dr. Stupid

 

[davidsmith73]

Ian,



Why is it that every discussion with you ends up with us disagreeing on a definition, and you insisting that I am using the wrong meaning (as though that were somehow relevant to the actual content of the discussion )?

Could it be because you cannot actually address the content of my position? You know what I mean by objective now. Who cares whether you use the word to mean the same thing or not?

What matters is that my original point, which is that the scientific method requires us to assume that there is more to reality than just our own experiences.

Just look at the nonsensical gymnastics you guys have gone through in your attempt to refute this. You start by saying that my assumption of an external reality (which I clearly explained as meaning that there is more to reality than your own experiences) is not necessary for science. You then made no objection when I referred to this as an assumption of objective reality. Then, when I explained why an external reality is, in fact, necessary for science, you start whining that this isn't what "objective" means!

Who cares what the damn word means! It is just a word. It means whatever you define it to mean. What is important is the content of my position. Can you actually address that content, or are you just going to keep playing meaningless word games, and avoiding the issue?


Dr. Stupid

Stimpy for gods sake, the content of your position is entirely dependent of the meaning of your words !

flibble grobble queack.

What content is there in that ? Sweet FA. Thats because I haven't specified the meaning of those words. When we "play word games" we are doing it for a very important reason. The meaning that you are using for words is not relavent to the argument.

 

[c4ts]

This is why I loathe semantics.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



Why is it that every discussion with you ends up with us disagreeing on a definition, and you insisting that I am using the wrong meaning (as though that were somehow relevant to the actual content of the discussion )?

Could it be because you cannot actually address the content of my position? You know what I mean by objective now. Who cares whether you use the word to mean the same thing or not?

You continually use words outside their proper meaning. By so doing you cheat because then you say things like science deals with the objective, which obviously I have no problems with under the proper definition of objective. But you use the word "objective" to include that which is only purely subjective ie conscious experiences. So your statements to the causual onlooker look eminently sensible. But if one digs into what you actually mean by these words your position is incoherrent nonsense. This is not to mention that from one post to the next you persistently contradict yourself!

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

Stimpy for gods sake, the content of your position is entirely dependent of the meaning of your words !

That is why I went to great lengths to explain what I meant as clearly as possible. Is there still any aspect of my position which you don't understand? If so, what?

What content is there in that ? Sweet FA. Thats because I haven't specified the meaning of those words. When we "play word games" we are doing it for a very important reason. The meaning that you are using for words is not relavent to the argument.

Give me a break. In my above post I even went so far as to completely rephrase my position, and my questions about yours, so as to eliminate any ambiguous language or words whose meanings we don't agree on. You have simply ignored that, and continue to whine about semantics.


Ian,

You continually use words outside their proper meaning.

Says you. What is the proper meaning, anyway? The words in question have many usages in common English. That is why when discussing philosophy or science, it is necessary to precisely define your terms. I have done that.

And I have never before met anybody who did not consider the assumption that other people actually exist to be an assumption of objective reality. Even the other Idealists I have conversed with agree that Idealism assumes an objective reality, and that the ontological nature of that reality is mind.

I think you guys are just desperately searching for anything to sidetrack the discussion from the actual issue.

By so doing you cheat because then you say things like science deals with the objective, which obviously I have no problems with under the proper definition of objective. But you use the word "objective" to include that which is only purely subjective ie conscious experiences. So your statements to the causual onlooker look eminently sensible. But if one digs into what you actually mean by these words your position is incoherrent nonsense. This is not to mention that from one post to the next you persistently contradict yourself!

The above might actually be a valid criticism, if not for two facts:

1) I have been very clear about exactly what I mean. There is no way you can accuse me of being deliberately misleading with my words, because from the very beginning of this discussion I have been very careful to clarify any words which may be even slightly ambiguous.

2) Your assertion that my usage of the word objective is incorrect, is simply nonsense. This is how most of the philosophers I have conversed with, materialists, idealists, dualists, theists, and so on, define the term.

But of course, none of this makes any difference. You both know what my position is. Can you answer my questions, and address my points, or not?

I'll repeat them for you:

1) Do you agree that there must be more to reality than just your experiences, for science to make sense?

2) Do you agree that your form of mental monism makes the assumption that there is more to reality than just your experiences?

3) Do you agree that there are components of your mental monism which must be assumed, which do not have to be assumed in order for science to be valid?

If your answer to the above three questions are all yes, then we are essentially in agreement about everything other than the claim that mental monism is actually true, or a rational position to hold.

If all you are interested in doing is quibbling about word usage, then just say so now, so that I can quit wasting my time.


Dr. Stupid