Subjectivity and Science

[Mobyseven]

So here I go, again. Test-tube born babies proves that we are perfectly able to replicate the function of an uterus. Deal with it.

You're aware that test-tube babies aren't brought to term in a test-tube, right? The 'conception' occurs in vitro, and resulting embryos are then implanted in the uterus of the female. This is done because, at the moment, we aren't able to replicate the function of a uterus.

IVF is proof that we can relicate sex and conception, it has nothing to do with replicating the function of the uterus.

 

[hammegk]

Which, when thought about critically, is just silly. If monism is the answer, then we are only able to see what is out there, and there is no possible way to tell the difference between monism and idealism.

Er, Idealism is a choice of monism; Naturalism/Physicalism/Materialism whatever-its'- proponents-care-to-rename-it-today is the anti-thetical monism.

In fact, the situation is necessarily the case, therefore, that we use two different words to refer to what must be the same thing. So, where is the controversy? I find these fights over different monisms really stupid.

Naturalism demands one discard god apriori; Idealism considers the existence of god an aposteriori problem. I at least don't find that stupid.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Er, Idealism is a choice of monism; Naturalism/Physicalism/Materialism whatever-its'- proponents-care-to-rename-it-today is the anti-thetical monism.


Naturalism demands one discard god apriori; Idealism considers the existence of god an aposteriori problem.

Only if one gives properties to the ur-substance. Do you know the properties of the ur-substance, then?

I have no idea what this stuff we call 'matter' is except that it is exceedingly weird.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Which, when thought about critically, is just silly. If monism is the answer, then we are only able to see what is out there, and there is no possible way to tell the difference between materialism and idealism. In fact, the situation is necessarily the case, therefore, that we use two different words to refer to what must be the same thing. So, where is the controversy? I find these fights over different monisms really stupid.

To the best of my knowledge it all started with this (only a partial quote, bolding mine):

But, said I, how did one of those resulting consciousnesses become the centre of experience I call my consciousness? How did I get in here, talking to you out there? It is that question that keeps bringing me back to consider different views of the world from the materialist one.

I suspect that many scientific materialists don't consider the mystery of their own consciousness much from that absolute perspective. The more I consider it, meditate and read spiritual philosophies, the more sense a world view makes that includes Consciousness as fundamental, perhaps Cosmic, a priori, given. Scientists are happy to imagine a universe in which matter or energy-matter or space-time are fundamental, and indeed lap up the weirdness of all of that exploding out of a singularity behind which is no past (since time was created) or place (since space was). Yet I have heard no convincing explanation of consciousness that does not describe it in third-person, out-there, functional-material language, utterly missing the philosophical problem of its subjective quality - it is not an it, but an I.

Obviously things have escalated further from this, in many directions, but it seems to me that what’s disputed over is that materialism can/cannot account for the subjective quality of consciousness, i.e. over the “hard problem” of consciousness or whether we even have a hard problem at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, I don't. That is all part of your scientific world view. I have stated time and time again that what I am talking about concerns subjective experience that may well be unverifiable by objective means. That stuff is all in your philosophy. If you want to deny mine, you will have to study it internally, subjectively first (but you will find that it is difficult and frightening and real). You are the one who keeps talking about investigating behaviour, and requiring me to say what these ideas do. I am saying that it is possible that it IS the nature of the real world. If that is the case, then saying that "it becomes subject to science, and to the rules of science" is backward. The rules of science are subject to what is. You seem to have nothing to say about what is, only how stuff behaves. Even your own consciousness you can only describe in behavioural terms. You have no idea what it is, or anything else in the universe. Science, in reality, has no idea what any of it - even 'matter' - actually IS.

You yourself claimed that your idea changes the nature of space and time. What are those changes, John? What do they do?

And if they don't do anything, in what way has anything changed? If science still produces the correct answer, what has changed?

The rest of your replies were much the same thing, in which you asked for more information about what it does, why it should make any difference, etc. See, PixyMisa, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do spiritual development for you. If you want to know more, go and do some. Thanks for reminding me how to spell orthodoxy, though.

No, John. You don't get to do that.

Science has special standing, because science works. And what do you have? You have something you made up. You have no evidence of any kind. No-one will take you seriously, nor should they.

 

[PixyMisa]

Good example! Tell me then, what about test-tube born children?

What about them?

What about cloned cells that we are able to grow in to adults?

What about them?

Guess that doesn't show anything.

It might show something; it certainly doesn't show a working model of the uterus.

Back to high-school biology for you. Also, sex ed.

 

[Nick227]

Thanks Nick. As you might have noted, I'm pretty familiar with such concepts. Now, I'm also a skeptic so I know that most of the people who believes (or want to believe) in philosophies like Advaita Vedanta are also looking to drive the car when they are unable to even reach the pedals.

Hi BDZ,

I guess I would consider Advaita a self-invalidating philosophy, which is its strong point. I find the general notion that there can be a point of observation from which to construct a meaningful philosophy or schema of "how things are" to be pretty laughable generally. Of course many philosophies do anything other than make one laugh, but I find the notion laughable.

In other words, there are to many woos pursuing anything that show them "a way out" to some of the materialistic theories of western cultures that it is difficult to see who is who at first sight. One way to recognize them is that woos tend to simply deny some the philosophical approaches of western cultures, and not only that, too many of them also believe in reincarnation, souls, mind powers and a whole bunch of nonsense in general.

Well, who knows with these things? Do you recall dying? Of course it's not you that actually dies so it's not you that is actually reborn, should reincarnation take place. Simple observation will demonstrate this.

Now, people in this forum deal with some of the most naive woos all the time, and so, to a point, I understand that they find it easy to disregard anyone who doesn't believe what they believe as simply "woos". This a mistake of course.

As for me, this puts me in a difficult position because, in general, I share with them the feeling towards "normal" woos, BUT I also have the same feeling regarding some of them (as I see them as pseudo skeptics or naive materialists and not real skeptics).

I believe that the right path is to see things from a broader perspective, showing woos why they should learn critical thinking and be able to present good arguments, but also encompassing (and not deny for convenience) fairly better world-views like materialism in the process.

One of the things I'm doing in my life is working in such model, and I might present the members of JREF a simplified version of it one of this days. But for now my point to you is that, at least in this forum, when dealing with obscure notions like "non duality" it is advisable to do it in terms that also denote a compromise with facts instead of pure subjective "feelings". Something that can be very difficult, not because it can't be done, but because nobody has done it.

This (hopefully) can helps us all to differentiate between ignorant woos and people who believe different but can't be simply labeled as a woo.

I don't think it's really a question of naivety or ignorance so much. When someone is choosing to dwell in a delusory belief pattern, it is invariably because they are attempting to avoid areas of their mind that they imagine "the real world" is pushing them into. Thus, to me, it is not really about who is right in the sense that there might exist some definitive picture of how things are, rather a question of who is avoiding themselves through woo....or skepticism.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Let's take language, for instance. We can't develop a language on our own, we need to interact with other minds (so to speak) in order to learn language from them.

No.

We learn to speak shared languages by interacting with others.

And (important detail), language is a core component of human consciousness.

Maybe so. But that language can be private.

Not to mention that we can only talk and think about "brains" and "consciousness" when we know a language.

Not relevant.

Pixy's account of consciousness being "a function of the brain" is what is rubbish, to put it in nicer words, it just demonstrates how naive is her POV in a way she understands, this is, using the words she love to use to demonstrate her "superiority".

Nope.

Consciousness is brain function.

 

[Nick227]

Dissociative drug^WPPCP, ketamine, and nitrous oxide can be considered hallucinogens. Ketamine makes you hallucinate while unconscious. Using it for anesthesia people report horrible nightmares. Nitrous and PCP are more like the hallucinations with solvent sniffing. Not sure I would call those hallucinogens. But they could be harmful, depending on dose and duration.

Deliriants^WP on the other hand cause real hallucinations. Rather than distorted visions like with LSD, you can see outright things that aren't there.

Not sure they cause brain damage, though. Guess I'd have to check. To my knowledge, they aren't the kind of drugs usually used recreationally except by the more adventurous experimenters.

Well, ketamine is a dissociative anaesthetic and it's ludicrously safe! They give it to 6 week old babies who need operations. Don't know much about the others. If you check the MAPS website there's probably a definition for hallucinogens somewhere.

There are researchers who believe MDMA (Ecstasy) is ready for Phase III clinical trials (given to lots of people) to treat PTSD.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think they differ all that much. BDZ, from what I can tell, was merely correcting a generalization that Pixy made -- one that I don't think Pixy believes himself. We all speak in short-hand in these threads. I would bet that Pixy would fully agree with what BDZ said.

No; he's just using some strange over-extension of the term "consciousness".

I actually defined what I meant by consciousness, right here in this thread, but DBZ - though he has been more forthcoming here than I've ever seen him previously - is not noted for addressing what is written.

Does consciousness require language? Only in the sense that all representations of information are language. A thermostat, to steal Dennett's example, has a language.

Does consciousness require other consciousness? No, absolutely not. BDZ's only support of this is apparently his (in turn) unsupported claim that shared language is required.

Does consciousness require perception? Sort of, though we can be more specific here. Consciousness is an information process. If there is no information, there is nothing to process, hence there is no process and no consciousness. So information is required. There need not be any ongoing perception, because consciousness requires memory, and conscious awareness can be sustained that way.

Does consciousness requre a world? Yes. Everything does. Not exactly a remarkable claim.

Consciousness is brain function.

 

[hammegk]

Only if one gives properties to the ur-substance. Do you know the properties of the ur-substance, then?

Nope. I leave it up to Naturalists/Physicalists/Materialists to define the attributes of their choice of monism, as has been done now in what may be millions of words over many centuries.

I have no idea what this stuff we call 'matter' is except that it is exceedingly weird.

What I do know of materialism is that it contains the apriori denial of god; it apparently isn't weird enough to manage not doing so even though a couple people here do try to make that argument.

In any case this is drifting far afield for this thread. I'll let it go back to considering the 1st person subjectivity / 3rd person objectivity problem.

 

[PixyMisa]

Er, Idealism is a choice of monism; Naturalism/Physicalism/Materialism whatever-its'- proponents-care-to-rename-it-today is the anti-thetical monism.

Naturalism demands one discard god apriori; Idealism considers the existence of god an aposteriori problem. I at least don't find that stupid.

Define "god".

What I do know of materialism is that it contains the apriori denial of god; it apparently isn't weird enough to manage not doing so even though a couple people here do try to make that argument.

Define "god".

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think they differ all that much. BDZ, from what I can tell, was merely correcting a generalization that Pixy made -- one that I don't think Pixy believes himself. We all speak in short-hand in these threads. I would bet that Pixy would fully agree with what BDZ said.

Hope you didn't bet money.

 

[PixyMisa]

You're aware that test-tube babies aren't brought to term in a test-tube, right? The 'conception' occurs in vitro, and resulting embryos are then implanted in the uterus of the female. This is done because, at the moment, we aren't able to replicate the function of a uterus.

But, but, but, he's so certain! Surely, if he's certain, it must be true! What do you have, some of those pesky "facts", against his certainty?

 

[hammegk]

Define "god".

Sorry. I choose not to undertake that task.

You'll have to use your own best definition before you decide apriori "god" cannot be an existent in your worldview.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry. I choose not to undertake that task.

If you don't define the term, then statements like:

Naturalism demands one discard god apriori; Idealism considers the existence of god an aposteriori problem. I at least don't find that stupid.

or

What I do know of materialism is that it contains the apriori denial of god; it apparently isn't weird enough to manage not doing so even though a couple people here do try to make that argument.

are meaningless.

You'll have to use your own best definition before you decide apriori "god" cannot be an existent in your worldview.

Why should I define it? You're the one wittering on about things you are unable or unwilling to define.

 

[Nick227]

For sure, monism makes sense; everyone seems to agree with that. The gun seems to be pointed at materialism and it’s validity as a tool for understanding consciousness; and to a lesser degree at the scientific method for not taking subjective experiences seriously.

Whilst the belief persists that there could exist some point of observation from which to make an objective statement about the nature of reality people will going on trying to make such a thing, and argue with other positions. Once you have seen that it is just the same thing arguing about its own nature with itself, it does get harder to really summon up much enthusiasm for this endeavour.

Nick

 

[articulett]

You're aware that test-tube babies aren't brought to term in a test-tube, right? The 'conception' occurs in vitro, and resulting embryos are then implanted in the uterus of the female. This is done because, at the moment, we aren't able to replicate the function of a uterus.

IVF is proof that we can relicate sex and conception, it has nothing to do with replicating the function of the uterus.

Moreover, if they are a recreation of any body part it's the fallopian tube, since that is where conception takes place. The embryo then attaches to the uterus approximately 6 days after conception.

 

[articulett]

still no nifty crap...

 

[Nick227]

Define "god".

The World is the vessel into which all the unwanted aspects of the self are hurled, and God the vessel into which we put all the things that our existing worldview can't explain.

Thus the nature of The World and the nature of God are dictated by the individual's concept of selfhood. God and The World are the ego's stooges who constantly clear up after him. Change your version of selfhood and you change the nature of god and the world. The 3 have an inter-defining relationship.

Nick