Subjectivity and Science

[PixyMisa]

The philosophical position of materialism allows one to examine things under a specific worldview which you defined elsewhere as:

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.

Define "libertarian free will".
Define "God".

Or stop using those terms.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

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.

Interesting how there’s no one ‘doing this’ yet someone ‘driving reality’. Sorry, couldn’t resist. But just to explicate my previous point: I was talking about the methodology of investigating and understanding how stuff behaves and relate to other stuff, you option in this respect is not very effective. But I kind of understand what you’re trying to imply in the realm of experiencing, it’s somewhat beside the point thou.

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?

Sorry, no mentionable emotional reaction. Funny how I felt being somewhat insensitive in suggesting your experience happening in your head, and your head alone. But this only serves to show that we tend to operate from a perspective of the phenomenal self most of the time, like you also seem to be doing. Nick, almost everyone is aware of the notional problem in regards to objectivity, people still find out how stuff in the world works, and to an enjoyable degree.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What can't science explain?

Don't know. I can't explain it. Ultimate reality for one, most likely.

And how do you know this?

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for one.

 

[PixyMisa]

Don't know. I can't explain it.

Look, I don't want to be rude (not to you, anyway) but if you don't know, then how can you justify making the statement?

Ultimate reality for one, most likely.

What's that, then? I've been berating Martillo for making definitive statements using undefined terms, so I can hardly let you do the same.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for one.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is hugely significant in mathematics, but I've yet to see an example of it being an actual limitation for science. It applies to formal systems, and in the real world, we only have representations of formal systems, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is part of the explanation of their behaviour.

 

[hammegk]

Ah changing my words to suit your argument.

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

Remove them: same difference.

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

Of course you do. That doesn't make them truths rather than axioms.

Materialism is not a belief system, it is a conclusion.

You are free to think so, randomly or determinately.

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.

None that you accept, anyway.

Define "libertarian free will".
Define "God".

No, I choose not to do so. Use your own definitions.

Or stop using those terms.

Or what?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Look, I don't want to be rude (not to you, anyway) but if you don't know, then how can you justify making the statement?

You don't think it is possible that we can be pretty darn sure that we can't know everything without being able to describe in some detail what it is that we can't know?

OK, I'll stop being coy. We are limited by our perceptual systems and by our particular cognitive ability. We have significant difficulty thinking in higher dimensions. Mathematicians do it to some degree, but most of us have a big problem thinking really outside the box.

There are very likely aspects to reality that we are not going to be able to understand because of our limitations. We have to be able to conceptualize something in order to get a handle on it.

We happen to know about the bits of the electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot directly experience because we can experience some of it (visible light). But we cannot know what it is really like to "see" in the UV spectrum -- this is similar to the Mary problem. There is something left out of descriptions of events that emerges in the experience of those events. There is nothing woo about that -- it is just an aspect of reality contained within particular experiences.

There may be aspects of energy/dark energy that we simply cannot conceptualize because we have no reason to think about them.

So, this is more along the lines of the old J.B.S. Haldane quote -- or paraphrase in my case since I can't remember it exactly -- the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

What's that, then? I've been berating Martillo for making definitive statements using undefined terms, so I can hardly let you do the same.

See above.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is hugely significant in mathematics, but I've yet to see an example of it being an actual limitation for science. It applies to formal systems, and in the real world, we only have representations of formal systems, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is part of the explanation of their behaviour.

By extension, if science could explain everything, then it should be completely formalizable. But any formalized system contains assumptions that it cannot account for or contains internal contradictions.

We must begin with assumptions. The beauty of science is that it only holds those assumptions provisionally and tries to examine them -- rejecting any that are proved false. There are some assumptions that we cannot see, however. That is just a consequence of constructing any thinking system.

 

[Robin]

Remove them: same difference.


Of course you do. That doesn't make them truths rather than axioms.

I didn't say they were truths. I said they were conclusions. That means there is reasoning behind them.

Do you really not understand the difference between an axiom and a conclusion.

You are free to think so, randomly or determinately.

Nope. I have never found myself free to think anything that I have not deeply analysed, I don't seem to be built that way.

None that you accept, anyway.

Show me where you have ever actually addressed either of the elements of my definition.

You have not, you have gone of on tangents like claiming that I must be a dualist if I am not 100% certain of myself all of the time.

No, I choose not to do so. Use your own definitions.

Let me get this straight. When you use the term free will you don't even have a ghost of a clue about what you might mean by it, but are certain of the conclusions you draw about it. Right?

 

[Robin]

It is important to distinguish between what science can’t explain because of our limited cognitive abilities, and what science could not even theoretically explain.

So you would have to think of what properties it might have that would make it resistant to any mathematical isomorphism.

For example if a single event were arbitrary there could not be any mathematical model that could have predicted it’s behaviour (although there might be a mathematical model that can predict the distribution of a series of such events). So arbitrary events can still be represented in mathematical models but the predictive powers of such models are necessarily limited to probabilistic predictions.

But is there any non-arbitrary event that would resist a predictive mathematical model? What would make it so resistive?

It would have to be non-arbitrary, non-deterministic. We have been coming back to this point on this forum for years.



(PS and ironically if it were ever demonstrated that something were non-arbritary and non-deterministic then scientists would be scrambling to study it).

 

[hammegk]

I didn't say they were truths.

You named them definitions.

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase.

So what am I to say? Do you think definitions are conclusions? I don't.

I said they were conclusions. That means there is reasoning behind them.

Conclusions of course require prior analysis.

Do you really not understand the difference between an axiom and a conclusion.

Yes, I do. Early on in the I'm The Only Materialist thread I termed your statements "premises". That would have been a good time to state that you considered them "conclusions".

For my purpose as a working definition of the underpinnings of materialism, I do not consider them conclusions.

Show me where you have ever actually addressed either of the elements of my definition.

Please make up your mind. Definitions? or Conclusions?

You have not, you have gone of on tangents like claiming that I must be a dualist if I am not 100% certain of myself all of the time.

No, I've stated that if you are not fully able to accept corollary 1. as Truth, you have become a dualist under your own system.

Let me get this straight. When you use the term free will you don't even have a ghost of a clue about what you might mean by it, but are certain of the conclusions you draw about it. Right?

Lot's of people have lots of ideas: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

The only conclusion I've drawn is that it may exist.

 

[Robin]

Please make up your mind. Definitions? or Conclusions?

*sigh* it is not rocket science. In the real world when you present a conclusion you are expected to provide a definition of what you are concluding.

This I have done. As for prior analysis I have done decades of it. As I stated before I am willing to defend each part of the definition if you will tell me which you have trouble with.

Mmmkay?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So, this is more along the lines of the old J.B.S. Haldane quote -- or paraphrase in my case since I can't remember it exactly -- the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

Agreed, in fact I will try to write a brief resume of some of my ideas in my next post, here and also opening a new thread, ready for the possible flaming war that might result.

By extension, if science could explain everything, then it should be completely formalizable. But any formalized system contains assumptions that it cannot account for or contains internal contradictions.

Furthermore, I would argue that, even in principle, we can't have a complete system. In this sense, our ideas are NEVER "closer to what reality is."

We must begin with assumptions. The beauty of science is that it only holds those assumptions provisionally and tries to examine them -- rejecting any that are proved false. There are some assumptions that we cannot see, however. That is just a consequence of constructing any thinking system.

Absolutely, whats more, some assumptions are so deeply grounded that we can't even see them as assumptions. We simply take for granted they are real and valid no matter what, even "objectively true" so to speak.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Some quite unexpected facts (to the common people)

There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness. There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies. Consciousness is your world, the only one you know and will know, the only one that exists and will ever exists.

There is also nothing “internal” to consciousness. Feeling, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, language, etc. are also your world. Still, consciousness is merely the tip of the iceberg (notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world).

Consciousness is made of phenomena, yet it is caused by the noumena. As we have seen, phenomena comprehends both the world and the ego, the external and the internal, the objective and the subjective.

The noumena is, whatever it is, outside the reach of consciousness. For convenience we can say that the noumena is physical, made of quarks, quantum states, strong and weak forces, and so on. But we must never forget that such concepts are oversimplifications that serve a purpose (they are like anchors that let us to make predictions) but are not “real entities in themselves”. Particles and waves are ways of describing the noumena, nothing else, and nothing more.

The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena, and every attempt to describe it will begin and finish in language. Different languages, different concepts and you might end with a different description. Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena, but not “truer” or “more accurate” or “better” outside its predictive capabilities.

 

[John Freestone]

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.

Blimey Guv, we have got to a wonderful place of understanding, haven't we! And, yeah, I agree with that up to a point. However, articulett, if you have a look at what Pixy says, you'll find that science can not only explain consciousness (in a single sentence, apparently), but can build a machine that has that property from a few bits out of Radio Shack. And Pixy is not alone.

I think the irritation we have goes both ways - there are, of course, people who appear to be unable to think properly, or are hypnotised by cults, or have grown up with some strong religious tradition and you get sick of them telling you science is all garbage and god will strike you down etc. But there are people who appreciate science, yet see it as having some important flaws, and similarly we get sick of the scientific evangelists telling us that science has got everything pretty well sussed.

More than a few people in our modern culture consider this overplaying of the scientific philosophy as an insidious arrogance. You are right, of course, not to be sure who else could fill in the blanks, but so much of the scientific community appears to be pretending that all the blanks are about to be filled in, and could only ever be filled in by science, because it has a correct philosophical/metaphysical model of reality and a correct methodology for investigating everything.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness. There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies. Consciousness is your world, the only one you know and will know, the only one that exists and will ever exists.

There is also nothing “internal” to consciousness. Feeling, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, language, etc. are also your world. Still, consciousness is merely the tip of the iceberg (notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world).

Consciousness is made of phenomena, yet it is caused by the noumena. As we have seen, phenomena comprehends both the world and the ego, the external and the internal, the objective and the subjective.

The noumena is, whatever it is, outside the reach of consciousness. For convenience we can say that the noumena is physical, made of quarks, quantum states, strong and weak forces, and so on. But we must never forget that such concepts are oversimplifications that serve a purpose (they are like anchors that let us to make predictions) but are not “real entities in themselves”. Particles and waves are ways of describing the noumena, nothing else, and nothing more.

The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena, and every attempt to describe it will begin and finish in language. Different languages, different concepts and you might end with a different description. Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena, but not “truer” or “more accurate” or “better” outside its predictive capabilities.

I think I know where you are coming from, but for your own sake you might want to rephrase that first paragraph before it gets misinterpreted and you are jumped all over.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think I know where you are coming from, but for your own sake you might want to rephrase that first paragraph before it gets misinterpreted and you are jumped all over.

Thanks, but if it is misinterpreted is ok. First, because I reckon it is difficult to swallow, secondly, because I'm still learning to state all this correctly. In fact, this is my first public attempt. And thirdly, because any fierce criticism in here will only allow me to learn from possible failures in my argument, and that's always a good thing.

BTW, I chosen some of the words specifically, so it might sound even more radical than what it is, but you would have to read it ALL, and understand it, in order to be able to note it.

In other words, I'm here to grow, not to hide or to say things in order for people to like me.

 

[articulett]

Blimey Guv, we have got to a wonderful place of understanding, haven't we! And, yeah, I agree with that up to a point. However, articulett, if you have a look at what Pixy says, you'll find that science can not only explain consciousness (in a single sentence, apparently), but can build a machine that has that property from a few bits out of Radio Shack. And Pixy is not alone.

I think the irritation we have goes both ways - there are, of course, people who appear to be unable to think properly, or are hypnotised by cults, or have grown up with some strong religious tradition and you get sick of them telling you science is all garbage and god will strike you down etc. But there are people who appreciate science, yet see it as having some important flaws, and similarly we get sick of the scientific evangelists telling us that science has got everything pretty well sussed.

More than a few people in our modern culture consider this overplaying of the scientific philosophy as an insidious arrogance. You are right, of course, not to be sure who else could fill in the blanks, but so much of the scientific community appears to be pretending that all the blanks are about to be filled in, and could only ever be filled in by science, because it has a correct philosophical/metaphysical model of reality and a correct methodology for investigating everything.

It's not that science knows everything, but with the brain being the generator of consciousness, we are definitely on the right track and are learning more all the time. It's like evolution. We don't know everything, but it has already helped us understand so much that we have no reason to think that something won't fit into that framework... it explains things so well. The same is true with the brain being the generator of consciousness-- if we want to alter consciousness... we alter the brain...

I don't think anyone thinks it's all explained any more than anyone thinks evolution is all explained, but the paradigm is the the best fit for what we observe and has not been falsified, though it certainly could be. You don't get much better than that in science. We don't know everything there is to know about gravity, but we know enough to know that we've got a great theory and we're on the right track and it "works".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thanks, but if it is misinterpreted is ok. First, because I reckon it is difficult to swallow, secondly, because I'm still learning to state all this correctly. In fact, this is my first public attempt. And thirdly, because any fierce criticism in here will only allow me to learn from possible failures in my argument, and that's always a good thing.

BTW, I chosen the wording specially, so it might sound even more radical than what it is, but you would have to read it and understand it to note it.

In other words, I'm here to grow, not to hide or to say things in order for people to like me.

I can just see that first paragraph as being interpreted to mean that there is no noumena. Ultimately it may all be nothing, of course, but I think some folk might not get past the first paragraph without bursting a blood vessel.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I can just see that first paragraph as being interpreted to mean that there is no noumena. Ultimately it may all be nothing, of course, but I think some folk might not get past the first paragraph without bursting a blood vessel.

Thanks again, I specify that consciousness is YOUR world, and right in the second paragraph I state clearly a separation between what is called "subjective" and "objective". So, I do believe that only if you are a closed minded person you will immediately interpret it, right from the first sentence.

If, on the other hand, this person is curious, and read it all, and understand it, he/she might be able to raise interesting points, and so we can discuss them.

 

[articulett]

I can just see that first paragraph as being interpreted to mean that there is no noumena. Ultimately it may all be nothing, of course, but I think some folk might not get past the first paragraph without bursting a blood vessel.

I don't burst a blood vessel... I used to be "into" new age kind of thinking, and I understand that the only world we will know is the one we get from our brain's interpretation-- but the world exists even when I'm not thinking about it... and even when I don't exist, the world will, just as it existed long before I have came to be.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thanks again, I specify that consciousness is YOUR world, and right in the second paragraph I state clearly a separation between what is called "subjective" and "objective". So, I do believe that only if you are a closed minded person you will immediately interpret it, right from the first sentence.

If, on the other hand, this person is curious, and read it all, and understand it, he/she might be able to raise interesting points, and so we can discuss them.

Yes, I agree, but I think you'll find that first paragraph to be a block to many folks.

When you get down to it, though, it's basically Kant with a little twist.