Former conspiracy believer here

[Nick227]

Identifying thoughts as your own is just a thought. There's no separate phenomenon or process at work here.

Hi PM,

That is not my experience. There is no separate "I"-thought arising, though of course the mind constantly refers to its sense of self-image in many interactions. Thus there are thoughts "about I", but no actual "I thought." This is my experience.

I very much doubt that you would find a neurobiological basis for this "I thought" either. I think, if such a basis for personal identity is to be found, it will be found around neurochemical circuits involved with seeking behaviour, dopamine - the Freudian "libido." In acting on a thought there is a sensation of pleasure.

Objectivity provides a framework for interpreting our observations. It does not in any way limit our observations.

Objectivity does considerably limit what you can study. You can only study objectively those phenomena which others can either directly observe or scientifically measure. You cannot directly study thought objectively, at least not yet. You can watch thoughts yourself, no one else can share the experience.

No it isn't. Limited self is an observation. You are completely wrong about this.

There's no direct evidence for personal identity. Without this, there is no limited self.

You have that back-to-front. Limited selfhood is necessary result of the fact that the brain generates thoughts. It's a simple physical reality.

The brain generates thoughts. That they appear to have identity, that they create the experience of personal identity, occurs by a process as yet undetermined by science.

Nick, if you leave objectivity behind, you don't have any data. You just have stuff you've made up.

Well, you just have stuff you experienced, not anyone else. For sure it's not very objective, but this is the central thing here. Subjective science is best used by people who already grasp the operational parameters of objective science. They know its limitations. They know that the sense of personal selfhood they experience is finally illusory.

However, if you are still locked in a mindset that believes that objective science can make meaningful statements about the nature of reality, then of course subjective science would seem at best pointless. You have to, for yourself, actually see the immense limitations of objectivity, to have any grasp of the significance of subjective science. Whilst you still believe that objectivity can do this stuff, then of course why would subjectivity even interest you?

In many ways this is a pointless discussion because I cannot show you what I can see.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

There is no such thing as "subjective science".

Qabalah is properly termed "nonsense".


No, it doesn't.


No you don't. There is one assumption inherent to objectivity, and that has indeed been tested. Not proven, but certainly tested.


To you. To no-one else, though, because all of this exists only in your imagination.

Well, it is in the nature of reality that I cannot directly show you what I am discussing. I would like to, but I cannot.

As I have mentioned before, objectivity proceeds from 2 prior assumptions....

- that sensory information reflects reality
- that there is a limited observer

You deny that the second is an assumption. This is how it is. I know its an assumption because I can sit still and experience it, but of course I cannot show this to you, and cannot meaningfully describe it. So this is how it is.

If you became aware of the second assumption I have a feeling your impression of subjective sciences might shift!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I have read through this post three times now, and I have yet to perceive (a) any data or (b) any criteria for usefulness. In other words, although you responded by quoting my questions, you did not answer them. At all.

Well, fair enough. But as I said to Pixy this is subjective. Whilst you still believe that objectivity can make meaningful statments about the nature of reality, then of course subjective grasp would seem woefully inadequate in comparison. I think you have to see it first. Come back to me when you do and we can discuss more.

Nick

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hi CS,

Maybe the HUP is not such a good example. I will have to read more. I'm not so much up on these things. Perhaps it is more to do with quantum mechanics and Quantum Theory itself. Here's a link from Wikipedia showing the multitude of ways people are trying to interpret how reality is in accordance with the Theory. My understanding is that quantum theory does considerably erode the notion of a limited self, a limited observer.

Generally, I think objective science is good for predicting the behaviour of reality, but highly inadequate when it comes to understanding the nature of reality.

This is what Feynman seems to me to be saying - We do not understand the nature of reality. "I'm not going to make it something like a ball bearing on a spring. It isn't. So I'm going to tell you what it really is like, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. OK?" This is his position. What has been uncovered by scientists in the subatomic realm is totally shocking. You cannot grasp it because what is implied completely confounds our existing beliefs about ourselves and our world.

Nick

There will always be more questions than answers. It's very possible that there are aspects of reality that will forever be beyond the grasp of the human mind to understand and interpret correctly. Our brain architecture evolved in response to macro-level concerns, and we may simply not have what it takes to wrap our minds around our most mystifying observations. You point out, correctly, that much of the knowledge uncovered by the modern scientific pursuit has challenged our understanding of the fundamental rules governing the universe. What it has not challenged is the assumption that these rules are, for all intents and purposes (i.e. within the theoretical limits of present and future human knowledge) immutable--they will remain consistent regardless of subjective interpretation.

The nature of reality is always up for interpretation...insofar as it has not yet been objectively identified and verified. In that sense, there is certainly a place for subjective pondering. But if you're hoping to collect useful data by such navel-gazing alone, you're always going to come up short.

The exception to this is if your pondering is based on interpreting objective observations, and it leads you to a hypothesis that can be objectively tested. In this case, you start with useful data, and you end up with further useful data. The most famous example of someone doing this is Einstein's trumping Newton.

The various interpretations of quantum theory are interesting, but they're not particularly useful. They'll remain useless until someone figures out how they can be tested.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is not my experience.

Experiences are thoughts.

There is no separate "I"-thought arising

What do you mean by that? As soon as you think about whether a thought is yours or not, you are thinking about thinking. So the identification is itself a thought.

though of course the mind constantly refers to its sense of self-image in many interactions.

Thoughts

Thus there are thoughts "about I", but no actual "I thought." This is my experience.

No it isn't.

I very much doubt that you would find a neurobiological basis for this "I thought" either.

All thoughts have a neurological basis. We know this, because if you take away the neurological basis, you don't get any thoughts.

I think, if such a basis for personal identity is to be found, it will be found around neurochemical circuits involved with seeking behaviour, dopamine - the Freudian "libido." In acting on a thought there is a sensation of pleasure.

Why?

Objectivity does considerably limit what you can study.

Nope.

You can only study objectively those phenomena which others can either directly observe or scientifically measure.

That is not a limitation.

You cannot directly study thought objectively, at least not yet.

Sure you can. We can observe the actions of single neurons, of groups of neurons, of brain regions, of entire brains. We also have computers, which do the same stuff.

You can watch thoughts yourself, no one else can share the experience.

With current technology, with living human beings, no, this isn't feasible in general. What it isn't is any sort of absolute.

There's no direct evidence for personal identity. Without this, there is no limited self.

Wrong. The evidence for personal identity, for limited self, is as clear and objective as the evidence for life itself. We observe what creatures do, and how they do it.

Amoebas have a concept of limited self, and they don't even have brains.

The brain generates thoughts. That they appear to have identity, that they create the experience of personal identity, occurs by a process as yet undetermined by science.

No, Nick. It's just a thought. A process of thoughts, if you prefer. That's all. Why should it be more?

Well, you just have stuff you experienced, not anyone else.

Thoughts.

For sure it's not very objective, but this is the central thing here.

That means it's not evidence. Oz, Narnia, and Middle Earth are not real, Nick, even though I have experienced them.

Subjective science is best used by people who already grasp the operational parameters of objective science.

There is no such thing as subjective science. It's an oxymoron.

They know its limitations. They know that the sense of personal selfhood they experience is finally illusory.

Then they know nothing.

However, if you are still locked in a mindset that believes that objective science can make meaningful statements about the nature of reality, then of course subjective science would seem at best pointless.

No, Nick. Subjective speculation is pointless because it cannot be tested, analysed, verified, falsified, or indeed related to the real world in any way whatsoever.

You have to, for yourself, actually see the immense limitations of objectivity, to have any grasp of the significance of subjective science.

Both of these things exist only in your imagination.

Whilst you still believe that objectivity can do this stuff, then of course why would subjectivity even interest you?

It doesn't.

In many ways this is a pointless discussion because I cannot show you what I can see.

Correct. You can't. Because your imaginings do not connect with reality. If they connected with reality in any way, you could show me something. If your ancient mystical alchemists could actually do anything, you could show me that. You can't, because it is entirely fictional.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, it is in the nature of reality that I cannot directly show you what I am discussing. I would like to, but I cannot.

No, Nick. The nature of reality is that you can show it to people. Indeed, that's the definition of reality.

What you have is, likewise by definition, fantasy.

As I have mentioned before, objectivity proceeds from 2 prior assumptions....

- that sensory information reflects reality
- that there is a limited observer

And you were wrong then, and you are still wrong.

You deny that the second is an assumption. This is how it is. I know its an assumption because I can sit still and experience it, but of course I cannot show this to you, and cannot meaningfully describe it. So this is how it is.

No, Nick. We can see the existence of the notion of a limited observer in every species of animal, from humans and apes, to cats and dogs, to lizards and fish and insects and worms and bacteria. Every living thing that can respond to stimuli demonstrates the same thing, over and over: The built-in, hardwired notion of the limited observer. It's so obvious that no normal person even bothers to comment on it.

If you became aware of the second assumption I have a feeling your impression of subjective sciences might shift!

It's not an assumption.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is what Feynman seems to me to be saying - We do not understand the nature of reality.

He's talking about the behaviour of subatomic particles, of matter and energy. If you like, you can describe that as the "nature of reality". It is purely materialist, objective, mathematical physics.

"I'm not going to make it something like a ball bearing on a spring. It isn't. So I'm going to tell you what it really is like, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. OK?" This is his position. What has been uncovered by scientists in the subatomic realm is totally shocking.

No. It's fascinating. It's not shocking.

You cannot grasp it because what is implied completely confounds our existing beliefs about ourselves and our world.

My existing beliefs - inasmuch as I believe anything at all - include quantum mechanics, because it has been experimentally verified and shown to be thoroughly sound and exceptionally useful. Which is as good a reason as I can think of to believe anything.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe the HUP is not such a good example. I will have to read more. I'm not so much up on these things. Perhaps it is more to do with quantum mechanics and Quantum Theory itself.

What IS it with quantum theory and woo ?

The uncertainty principle is simple logic, Nick. If you look at a particle, then you are interacting with it because you're shooting particles at it in order to get a feedback. That means that it will affect the particle in some way and alter some of its parameters. Ergo, you can't know what was its exact state just before you bombarded it.

It has nothing to do with a metaphysical observer.

Here's a link from Wikipedia showing the multitude of ways people are trying to interpret how reality is in accordance with the Theory.

Probably just because they don't understand it.

Generally, I think objective science is good for predicting the behaviour of reality, but highly inadequate when it comes to understanding the nature of reality.

What is there to its nature EXCEPT its behaviour ?

That is not my experience. There is no separate "I"-thought arising, though of course the mind constantly refers to its sense of self-image in many interactions. Thus there are thoughts "about I", but no actual "I thought." This is my experience.

How, exactly, did you reach that conclusion ?

There's no direct evidence for personal identity.

Of course there is. If you stopped repeating your mantra and started listening to what people write, you'd know this by now.

The brain generates thoughts. That they appear to have identity, that they create the experience of personal identity, occurs by a process as yet undetermined by science.

Nick, that makes no sense, whatsoever. If thoughts are generated by a brain, then they are, by definition, OF that brain.

 

[Belz...]

Well, it is in the nature of reality that I cannot directly show you what I am discussing. I would like to, but I cannot.

That's because what you're discussing is nonsensical.

You deny that the second is an assumption. This is how it is. I know its an assumption because I can sit still and experience it, but of course I cannot show this to you, and cannot meaningfully describe it. So this is how it is.

No, you're still making stuff up. The very fact that you can "sit still" and experience it shows that you're thinking about thoughts, as Pixy said.

If you became aware of the second assumption I have a feeling your impression of subjective sciences might shift!

That's because you have a limited understanding of reality.