Subjectivity and Science

[Nick227]

One strives for objectivity if one’s aspiration is to research how stuff in the real world behaves and operates in relation to other stuff.

Yes, I agree in a sense. However, there is now the awareness that no individual is really doing this, and that no meaningful point of observation actually exists. You can still be a scientist if that takes your fancy, for sure, or if you think there are good things to be found with science.

There's another option - you simply put out your worldview with all the power you can summon, not because that worldview reflects any form of objective truth, you'll be aware no such thing can exist, but because that's what you want to do. You drive reality.

Personal world view shouldn’t be of concern in this endeavour, although it obviously affects the seeking to a variable degree anyway – that’s why we have methodologies as check marks. Seeking objectivity, although never reaching it absolutely, just happened to be the most reliable strategy. It’s possible that this can also be extended to personal experiences, like it or not. I just happen to believe that it possible that consciousness can be explained more reliably via other means than introspection, regardless of my own experiences.

Good luck with explaining consciousness objectively!

It seem to me that you’re trying to find a polite way in saying I don’t have a clue what you’re trying to suggest – and that’s fine too since I sit content either way. I have actually found our exchange interesting. You saying that it’s ****ing obvious doesn’t really make much of a difference in a social context. Ultimately science is a social endeavour; things need to be explained accordingly. The record for science is pretty convincing it this respect.

Yes, that's accurate. You don't seem to me to much of an idea as to the scale of the issue.

Comfort is of no concern here, reliable information is however.

I think you need to ask yourself what a non-dual reality looks like. What are the implications? If you still believe you can make valid objective statements about it in, say, a month's time, I think it would be needed to look harder or change tack.

If you have understood my point, it’s also obvious that me “not liking the look of this” is irrelevant.

Then I haven't understood your point. I do think you don't like the look of it, though perhaps you're not consciously aware of this. Do you detect at all an emotional investment in your interest in making objective statements about the nature of consciousness? If someone just says flat out that such a thing is impossible, what's your emotional reaction?

There’s also a slight difference in saying ‘that’s just your opinion’ and ‘that’s your opinion’: the former one insinuates denial whereas the latter one implies alternative. I also presented that alternative view.

I felt like you were keeping ideas at a distance.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I noticed that none of the woosters wanted to deal with this.

Have you all noticed that none of them want to deal with anything practical, ever? I assume, based on all previous evidence, that their own ideas are as practical as the time spend examining their own belly buttons.

I didn't follow so much what it had to do with the discussion. Maybe that's me. Personally I would buy the car that I could see.

I don't really get why you feel that anything I've said is impractical. In actuality it is supremely practical. Non-dualism effectively says that all philosophy is utterly meaningless, including non-dual philosophy. Now, if you were, say, a woman trying to get your philosopher husband to put a shelf up in the kitchen, well, you'd be wasting your time asking most philosophers. They'd be too busy buried with their heads in a book. But, with a non-dualist, that shelf's up, babe!

Non-dualist philosophy is thus by far the most practical philosophy.

Nick

 

[John Freestone]

Wrong, which guru are you talking about? Apparently you are biased because of my name? For the Nth time. Science DOES'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING, science is a tool, the explanations belong to our particular world-view.

Now, something that might be shocking. Individuals alone VERY RARELY can make entirely new world-views. You and other materialists (yes, materialism is a world-view, a theoretical framework) naively think that if one disagree with SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS of your theoretical framework then he/she needs to propose something completely different. That's an absurd request.

I hope this is clear, once and for all. I have never stated that materialism is "wrong", got it? What I have done is demonstrate that some of its conclusions (strictly speaking of course some of the personal conclusions of some people who embrace materialism as a kind of "final answer) are simply non sequitur. It is in this sense, and in this sense alone, that I call THOSE individuals WOOs, not the entire world-view.

On the contrary, if you have been paying attention, I have stated that it is a fairly good theroretical framework, one that explains far more observations than, say, religion.




Really? Which beliefs? At least Im glad you recognize there is some gaps, others talk as if materialism assumptions were the whole and only truth. An absurd statement of course, but I guess you haven't read, at all, my first post to you, in which there is a brief resume of some of my arguments.



And this is of course correct, not like naive statements like "we already know it all, nothing else can be said, or is relevant". This is why is important to clarify, if you are not able to recreate it you don't fully understand it (what it is, how it works) and so you cant claim that there is nothing more to say and that your explanation is complete. I insist, that is painfully naive.



Suffices to state that the conclusions of some fans of materialism are naive, I do not have to give an alternative explanation about anything. How can I do the same as creationists if Im proposing no alternative theory but merely clearing things up?

If someone says that there are gaps in evolution, that some evidence is inconclusive, does he needs to have a different theory? Not necessarily, you are attempting a straw man (the "alternative delusion".

Read again my first post to you, comment it, tell me where do you disagree and ask if you have doubts, but DON'T attempt to put in my mouth something I have not said.

Nice one BDZ. My sentiments exactly. I don't suppose it will make that much difference to some people though.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It’s possible to interpret this, in regards to our discussion about consciousness here in two ways:

1) that the world actually is precisely as experienced, that expansion of consciousness is real in the absolute sense (which someone had a glimpse of), and consciousness seems not to be confined to the brain alone;

2) that our brains who generate consciousness are far more complex than we though, especially in the sense that it can generate an experience where identification with the phenomenal self is missing and provides a wonderful experience of “becoming noumena”, up to the point of shattering all previous worldviews held.

The first one is closely associated with a first-person interpretation whereas the latter one is associated with a third-person interpretation.

I could easily discard 1. I have been there, I have experienced the non-dual. It is not a "magical" state of consciousness, you do not become the universe (in the sense of having control of it or something like that) and nothing really changes but your POV (in fact, this notion is rendered useless, arguably, there is no more anything like a POV). You become one with perceptions, yes, no more perceptions and a self who experience them. It is obviously, impossible to discuss it in language and without sharing a frame of reference. All that is left are words, but words cant "touch it".

About 2. Yes, it simply DESTROYS any third person POV, every concept you withhold with energy in the past is rendered useless, but I think it is to much to say that the experience is.. well "real"... from the outside, this is, our common "place" of reference.

Btw. Bodhi, when you say that materialism is not to be confused with physicalism, what exactly do you think is the radical difference between them?

From Wiki:

"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)."

One is more encompassing than the other. Thats all.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Hello Mr Zen - further to my request from today (which was to finish the following sentence: "Consciousness isn't the sum total of all brain processes because")

I would be grateful if you could also tell me the evidence you have for the above, namely "brains alone do not produce what we call consciousness."?

Thank you.

It looks like the arguments against are concentrated on these issues: 1) not being able to create a working model of consciousness, not even a simplistic one; 2) our inability to define subjectivity; 3) the dependability of language for consciousness; 4) the world? (this remains somewhat unclear however); 5) other consciousness? (this also remains somewhat unclear). That is, if I have understood Bodhi correct.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It looks like the arguments against are concentrated on these issues:

1) not being able to create a working model of consciousness, not even a simplistic one;

2) our inability to define subjectivity;

3) the dependability of language for consciousness;

4) the world? (this remains somewhat unclear however);

5) other consciousness? (this also remains somewhat unclear). That is, if I have understood Bodhi correct.

Lupus, thanks for the resume. I appreciate it.

4 and 5 are obvious, IMO.

for 4) Whatever it is, "consciousness" would not exist in vacuum (there is literature to this respect. If anyone were interested they can simply google it). In other words, consciousness IS ABOUT SOMETHING.

for 5) There is nothing like a private language; it requires other minds (consciousness, whatever you like to call them). In other words, it requires a culture. Without this we end with Genies, or Hellen Kellers. There is, again, a lot of literature in this respect.

 

[Nick227]

This seems to be delving into neofreudian territory again.

This whole use of the term libidinal seems to be kind of goofy. Perhaps you mean something else.

There is no need for deterministic biology as well. Conditioning, learned response, associative netwrorks.

If you sit and observe thoughts passing through the mind, you may notice that the desire to act on a certain thought is not necessarily proportional to the relevance it has to the situation which caused its arisal. Thus, people constantly make decisions that are if not irrational, certainly not the best of the possibilities they evaluated as options. For example, our means for deciding on which woman or man to go out with often reflects far more a subconscious decision that an aware one.

Thus, I submit, it's valid to ask, "By what mechanism does this take place?" There are a whole choice of thoughts which I might act on in response to a certain situation, yet I chose this one. Yet, if I really had to look at it logically, I wouldn't have done so. Why should that be?

If you just watch the process take place in your own mind, you will see that a certain thought becomes acted upon, not necessarily through logical evaluation of its potential, but because it just seems as though it is more my thought. There is a heightened sense of identification present for this specific thought, and this overrides the conscious evaluative process.

In trying to ascribe a mechanistic pathway to this phenomenon, it seems to me that it is clearly subconsciously driven, and that it is motivated by an innate desire to become more conscious. By causing one specific thought to be acted upon, in preference to others which are more logical or reasonable, the individual begins to "act out" the subconscious drama, thus creating the possibility to become aware of it. Thus, it seems to me, there is a subconscious drive to raise self-awareness present in all humans.

I say the source is libido, to use the classical term, because this phenomenon is clearly subconsciously driven, particularly prominent in sexual activity, and clearly relating to seeking behaviour.

Can you explain to me the mechanistic route of this process in associative networks?

Nick

 

[articulett]

I don't understand what any of them are saying, and I can't tell how their views are useful except to make them feel superior in some way. They seem to read things into posts that have not been said by Pixy, Joe, Lupus, nor myself... and then argue against their straw man version of what they've inferred.

Can anyone boil down their point for me... Do John, Nick, and BDZ have the same point? To me it sounds like creationists picking apart evolution... I know what the words mean, but I can't find coherency in them. Some creationists say they believe in evolution, but there must be more than that... it sounds like they are saying that materialism has validity, but there must be more than that... but I don't understand why or what that more is, and materialists don't seem any more bothered by their supposed "hard problems" than evolutionists are bothered by the abiogenesis or supposed "irreducible complexity".

Are they just playing semantic games to feel like they "know" something or are they actually saying something coherent?

 

[Dancing David]

Hi David,

Well, see here for a general article. In addition, you could check out the following abstracts...

Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Psilocybin in 9 Patients With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

And why wouldn't they use an SSRI, in some people psylocibin causes an increase in anxiety.

Short term decrease in symptoms in nine people. What are the long term effects?

The Use of Psilocybin in Patients with Advanced Cancer and Existential Anxiety; CS Grob

MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Nick

I will not read that one because of it's use of the word existential. Sorry just a personal issue.

 

[Nick227]

I don't understand what any of them are saying, and I can't tell how their views are useful except to make them feel superior in some way. They seem to read things into posts that have not been said by Pixy, Joe, Lupus, nor myself... and then argue against their straw man version of what they've inferred.

Can anyone boil down their point for me... Do John, Nick, and BDZ have the same point? To me it sounds like creationists picking apart evolution... I know what the words mean, but I can't find coherency in them. Some creationists say they believe in evolution, but there must be more than that... it sounds like they are saying that materialism has validity, but there must be more than that... but I don't understand why or what that more is, and materialists don't seem any more bothered by their supposed "hard problems" than evolutionists are bothered by the abiogenesis or supposed "irreducible complexity".

Are they just playing semantic games to feel like they "know" something or are they actually saying something coherent?

I'm saying there's no point in philosophy once you've realised that there's no possibility to make a statement which could articulate reality. John's becoming dimly aware that this might be so. BDZ knows full well this is true but is ignoring it, no doubt because of some subconscious imperative.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

And why wouldn't they use an SSRI, in some people psylocibin causes an increase in anxiety.

Short term decrease in symptoms in nine people. What are the long term effects?


I will not read that one because of it's use of the word existential. Sorry just a personal issue.

Odd, I figured you might say that! I believe Existential Anxiety is in DSMIV now though. I don't know about the other questions, I'm sure you could contact the authors of the papers. I also know John Hopkins did a study with psilocybin and 60 patients. No doubt it's around on the web somewhere.

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm saying there's no point in philosophy once you've realised that there's no possibility to make a statement which could articulate reality. John's becoming dimly aware that this might be so. BDZ knows full well this is true but is ignoring it, no doubt because of some subconscious imperative.

Nick

What would you think about amending the above to replace the word philosophy with the word metaphysics?

There are still local problems that philosophy can address, though, of course, the answers will always be incomplete.

 

[jimbob]

the matrix?

i agree that we can find evidence to support materialism, and indeed i think there is a material world, and live as though there is.....but if i was asked as to which position i was more sure about - either solipsism or materialism, then i would have to conclude the former - the mind is the only thing i know exists....and even this i'm not entirely sure of

You mean like this?

There was once a faith healer of Deal
Who said, "Although pain isn't real
If I sit on a pin,
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel"

When a kid I thought about this, and then decided that there wasn't any point in wondering, as everything up to the instant before my instant's conciousness could have been illusory and there was no way of externaly verifying this, so I might as well act as if the material world exists, which is simpler too...

 

[Nick227]

What would you think about amending the above to replace the word philosophy with the word metaphysics?

There are still local problems that philosophy can address, though, of course, the answers will always be incomplete.

Well, I quite like metaphysics, particularly symbol systems. So I would struggle with this. It is a bit unfair on practical philosophers, I guess. (It would also threaten to make me more aware of my subconscious need to make sweeping statements!)

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't understand what any of them are saying, and I can't tell how their views are useful except to make them feel superior in some way. They seem to read things into posts that have not been said by Pixy, Joe, Lupus, nor myself... and then argue against their straw man version of what they've inferred.

Can anyone boil down their point for me... Do John, Nick, and BDZ have the same point? To me it sounds like creationists picking apart evolution... I know what the words mean, but I can't find coherency in them. Some creationists say they believe in evolution, but there must be more than that... it sounds like they are saying that materialism has validity, but there must be more than that... but I don't understand why or what that more is, and materialists don't seem any more bothered by their supposed "hard problems" than evolutionists are bothered by the abiogenesis or supposed "irreducible complexity".

Are they just playing semantic games to feel like they "know" something or are they actually saying something coherent?

I think a simplistic way to answer would be to say, "Science can't explain everything", which we should all know already.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

for 5) There is nothing like a private language; it requires other minds (consciousness, whatever you like to call them). In other words, it requires a culture. Without this we end with Genies, or Hellen Kellers. There is, again, a lot of literature in this respect.

Ok, a short one regarding language: Could it be that language only makes consciousness more complex to describe. For instance, people who have grown up among animals without almost any contact with humans: they have lost the ability for producing and understanding language, but they are obviously conscious nonetheless. This would indicate that consciousness is not dependent on learned human language, although human language tends to “expand” the conscious experience, and we then infer consciousness to be something more than it basically is. I.e. we are looking at the potentials rather than what creates that potentiality in the first place – we are overcomplicating consciousness, so to speak.

I will take a look at Helen Kellers and litterature regarding this when I find more time.

 

[Robin]

Materialism :
Axiom 1: Any event that is not deterministic is necessarily arbitrary.
Axiom 2: Any mental entity is a functional composite of non-mental entities.
First Corollary: If the above is true, then Idealism, Dualism, libertarian free-will and God are all impossible concepts.

Ah changing my words to suit your argument.

Have you any idea what desparate trouble your position must be that you have to resort to such clumsily dishonest tactics?

Axiom is your word, not mine. I have perfectly good arguments in support of both elements of the definition.

Materialism is not a belief system, it is a conclusion. Perhaps it is the wrong conclusion and I am happy to entertain arguments that it is so. But so far you have never tried to make any arguments against the position.

 

[articulett]

I think a simplistic way to answer would be to say, "Science can't explain everything", which we should all know already.

Well, then we all agree with that, don't we? Nobody ever said science has all the answers. It's just when science can't explain consciousness or lacks the information... I'm not sure anyone else is qualified to fill in the blanks.

 

[PixyMisa]

Wrong, which guru are you talking about? Apparently you are biased because of my name? For the Nth time. Science DOES'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING, science is a tool, the explanations belong to our particular world-view.

Wrong.

When we talk about scientific explanations, we are talking about predictive models. The thing about a predictive model is it makes predictions. And the thing about predictions is that you can check whether they are true.

And they are. Science explains things in a way nothing else does. Science works.

I hope this is clear, once and for all. I have never stated that materialism is "wrong", got it? What I have done is demonstrate that some of its conclusions (strictly speaking of course some of the personal conclusions of some people who embrace materialism as a kind of "final answer) are simply non sequitur.

Nope.

Really? Which beliefs? At least Im glad you recognize there is some gaps, others talk as if materialism assumptions were the whole and only truth.

Baloney. If people are talking about materialism as an assumption, they are obviously not talking about it as the "whole and only truth".

Suffices to state that the conclusions of some fans of materialism are naive, I do not have to give an alternative explanation about anything.

Suffices not; merely makes you look foolish.

How can I do the same as creationists if Im proposing no alternative theory but merely clearing things up?

IDists, rather.

If someone says that there are gaps in evolution, that some evidence is inconclusive, does he needs to have a different theory? Not necessarily, you are attempting a straw man (the "alternative delusion".

If he wishes to claim that a gap in the fossil record is in some way problematical - yes.

Read again my first post to you, comment it, tell me where do you disagree and ask if you have doubts, but DON'T attempt to put in my mouth something I have not said.

Demarcation dispute?

 

[PixyMisa]

I think a simplistic way to answer would be to say, "Science can't explain everything", which we should all know already.

What can't science explain? And how do you know this?