Subjectivity and Science

[Dancing David]

It seems to me that you are attempting to construct a justification for objectivity that can exist in non-duality. But you are still proceeding from the assumptions of the objective mindset. There are thoughts, so what? There is a body, so what? There are other bodies, apparently experiencing other thoughts, so what? If none of this has any real, actual sense of identity innate to it, what does it matter?

Hmm, I sort of see where you are headed but I would say to you that it doesn't matter.

I may or may not exist and as you put it earlier "I don't care" or in a more detached mode "It doesn't matter".

I really don't care and you seem to be projecting all sorts of stuff on to me for it.

So what?

So there are the experiences. That is all that there is as far as the living being which may or may not be.

You seem to have slipped into some extreme form of nihilism.

I doesn't matter if the identity is real or not. As in the common usage, it is there just for communications.

And appearances are all there are, or experiences or whatever.

The motivation to construct the objective mindset lies in the experience of identification. Without identification it could still be constructed, the raw materials are all still present, but where is the motivation? Where is the impelling force?

I really don't care about impelling force, I am rather simple minded and transparent. If something is there to be experienced and the pysical body can have that experience then it is what it is.

What implication are you heaeded towards. i am saying that the identification doesn't matter.

You seem really hung up on something that I don't understand. Perhaps trying to explain it would help.

It is the experience that the thoughts are "your thoughts," and that other thoughts are not, that provides the motivation to construct the objective mindset and interpret reality through it.

Nick

the experiences are what they are. Are you saying that there is an experience that is not limited to a physical body?

You have hid and avoided this question from the start and semantic defintions will not cahange it.

Experience is all that is.

What other point of reference for communications is there?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

One difference it makes is the ability to allow other people to have ideas different than yours.


The casual, and not so casual readers will make up their own minds as to which side of this debate will be furnishing members of the next Spanish Inquisition to root out heretics.

I see you and the scientifically literate of your mindset, abetted by the choir of Articuletts, with the tongs and hot irons; not BDZ, and Nick and Martillo and John, and Interesting Ian and Undercover Elephant and Hammegk (and me).

The primary catechism appears to be: I Believe In Evolution; Only Matter Exists. (And god does not.)

Hi, Hammy. How've you been?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I believe it would help, for all the interested, to map our particular views, in order to not using the same terms with different meanings. I'm not saying that the following depiction is the best, but it is a start. We all have to answer simple questions. Maybe then we can do some map and circular discussions could be avoided. Feel free to add more questions.

1) What is the universe made of?

2) Is consciousness in the universe? and if it is (whatever that is), its constituyents are the same as the rest of the universe?

3) Which tools can we use to find out what the universe is made of?

4) Is the question about the ultimate constituents of the universe important in the first place?



Let me start.

BDZ 1) It is irrelevant, as far as our descriptions work to predict meaningful things (for us of course)

BDZ 2) Yes, consciousness is continuous and homogeneous with the rest of, whatever it is, constitutes the universe

BDZ 3) Science, and at a personal level, perception without thoughts. But we can't answer the what, only describe (and see) its behavior.

BDZ 4) I believe it is not, what matters is that our relational descriptions of phenomena works.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I believe it would help, for all the interested, to map our particular views, in order to not using the same terms with different meanings. I'm not saying that the following depiction is the best, but it is a start. We all have to answer simple questions. Maybe then we can do some map and circular discussions could be avoided. Feel free to add more questions.

1) What is the universe made of?

2) Is consciousness in the universe? and if it is (whatever that is), its constituyents are the same as the rest of the universe?

3) Which tools can we use to find out what the universe is made of?

4) Is the question about the ultimate constituents of the universe important in the first place?



Let me start.

BDZ 1) It is irrelevant, as far as our descriptions work to predict meaningful things (for us of course)

BDZ 2) Yes, consciousness is continuous and homogeneous with the rest of, whatever it is, constitutes the universe

BDZ 3) Science, and at a personal level, perception without thoughts. But we can't answer the what, only describe (and see) its behavior.

BDZ 4) I believe it is not, what matters is that our relational descriptions of phenomena works.

I have pretty much the same answers.

 

[Dancing David]

One difference it makes is the ability to allow other people to have ideas different than yours.


The casual, and not so casual readers will make up their own minds as to which side of this debate will be furnishing members of the next Spanish Inquisition to root out heretics.

I see you and the scientifically literate of your mindset, abetted by the choir of Articuletts, with the tongs and hot irons; not BDZ, and Nick and Martillo and John, and Interesting Ian and Undercover Elephant and Hammegk (and me).

The primary catechism appears to be: I Believe In Evolution; Only Matter Exists. (And god does not.)

Hiya Hamme!

Welcome back, I have gone even farther since the last you visited, I think that i just use materialism as a common label. Functional objectivism seems to clunky.

I think evolution seems likely and that I can't tell if energy/matter are all that exist. I haven't seen any evidence that it dualist yet.

It really doesn't matter if energy is conscious or not.

I thought the new spanish inquisition was the neocons!

 

[JoeEllison]

One difference it makes is the ability to allow other people to have ideas different than yours.


The casual, and not so casual readers will make up their own minds as to which side of this debate will be furnishing members of the next Spanish Inquisition to root out heretics.

I see you and the scientifically literate of your mindset, abetted by the choir of Articuletts, with the tongs and hot irons; not BDZ, and Nick and Martillo and John, and Interesting Ian and Undercover Elephant and Hammegk (and me).

The primary catechism appears to be: I Believe In Evolution; Only Matter Exists. (And god does not.)

That's an an incredibly childish, and actually pretty consistent(!), position you've taken there. You have nothing to add to our knowledge, nothing of any import to share with anyone, and the fact that people notice the intellectual bankruptcy of your position isn't a hint that you need to rethink things. Instead, it feeds into the pathetic persecution complex that seems to always lurk just beneath the surface of woo beliefs.

You're allowed to have any viewpoint you want, and you're lying if you claim otherwise. You don't have a right to be taken seriously, though... and you aren't.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well. Be fair. Presumably it can be expected to work only if everyone does it, not just them.

As I said.

Anything will work if everyone does it, so the insight of these great teachers is basically zip.

 

[PixyMisa]

One difference it makes is the ability to allow other people to have ideas different than yours.

You can do that anyway. That doesn't make those ideas true, valid, or even coherent.

The casual, and not so casual readers will make up their own minds as to which side of this debate will be furnishing members of the next Spanish Inquisition to root out heretics.

Ad hominem.

I see you and the scientifically literate of your mindset, abetted by the choir of Articuletts, with the tongs and hot irons; not BDZ, and Nick and Martillo and John, and Interesting Ian and Undercover Elephant and Hammegk (and me).

Ad hominem.

The primary catechism appears to be: I Believe In Evolution; Only Matter Exists. (And god does not.)

Strawman.

Hi Hammy, how you been?

 

[articulett]

I believe in reincarnation... of sock puppets.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I believe in reincarnation... of sock puppets.

Now you are officially a clown.

 

[Apathia]

I believe it would help, for all the interested, to map our particular views, in order to not using the same terms with different meanings. I'm not saying that the following depiction is the best, but it is a start. We all have to answer simple questions. Maybe then we can do some map and circular discussions could be avoided. Feel free to add more questions.

1) What is the universe made of?

2) Is consciousness in the universe? and if it is (whatever that is), its constituyents are the same as the rest of the universe?

3) Which tools can we use to find out what the universe is made of?

4) Is the question about the ultimate constituents of the universe important in the first place?

Ah, an entry level post!

1.) To me it's a dubious question. We bring this whole "Made of" thing to the table. Is there something we experience that we can declare the Substance? Like velcro, for example? Or is it our reality's stuff as opposed to some other reality's stuff? (and how would you know?) Is it stuff all?
All we can really talk about is what we in our niche of the scale of things experience. Science describes the behavior of what we experience, nothing more. It's WYSIWYG.
I have a subjective inclination to saying that the world of experience is the very world of reality.

2.) Consciousness isn't a stuff. and it's not an ultimate reality. It's just a way of seeing. In a manner of speaking consciouness is in the universe. In another manner of speaking, the universe in consciouness. But consciouness is just a manner of speaking.

3.) In a manner of speaking, the universe is made of our tools.
And as we writers know, "The universe is made of stories."

4.) There are a few people who try to live as if reality were stone dead matter or, on the other hand, flighty ideals, or both, to their general misery.
But fortunately, most of us don't live in consistancy with these fantasies of metaphysics. So, to all practical purposes it hardly makes a difference. It certainly doesn't to the Scientific Method which can be properly followed by both a Hindu Idealist and a physical naturalist.
A skeptical perspective on the matter would be of use to anyone addicted to shallow ideologies about ultimate substances.

 

[Nick227]

Hmm, I sort of see where you are headed but I would say to you that it doesn't matter.

I may or may not exist and as you put it earlier "I don't care" or in a more detached mode "It doesn't matter".

I really don't care and you seem to be projecting all sorts of stuff on to me for it.

So what?

So there are the experiences. That is all that there is as far as the living being which may or may not be.

You seem to have slipped into some extreme form of nihilism.

I doesn't matter if the identity is real or not. As in the common usage, it is there just for communications.

And appearances are all there are, or experiences or whatever.

I really don't care about impelling force, I am rather simple minded and transparent. If something is there to be experienced and the pysical body can have that experience then it is what it is.

What implication are you heaeded towards. i am saying that the identification doesn't matter.

You seem really hung up on something that I don't understand. Perhaps trying to explain it would help.


the experiences are what they are. Are you saying that there is an experience that is not limited to a physical body?

You have hid and avoided this question from the start and semantic defintions will not cahange it.

Experience is all that is.

What other point of reference for communications is there?

Experiences are also constructed by the objective perspective. You can't experience without someone who is experiencing. That's my opinion, anyway. It's not a question of experiences...there are things, er....thing-ing. To a lively and interested mind perhaps it doesn't seem so exciting.

As to nihilism, this is not a nihilist perspective. It's a straight-down-the-line non-dualist perspective. The feelings that come up as a result of encountering non-dualism direct on are the feelings that the person is pushing out of awareness. The notion that non-dualism is nihilist is a common one, not because it has any veracity, but because people usually cling to any semblance of meaning in their life regardless of whether it has validity or not. They are frequently not so concerned with truth if it doesn't look like they want it to.

If you don't like non-dualism then why not just say so? If it makes you feel a lack of meaning I think it's better to say this. I find that more honest, personally.

Nick

 

[Dancing David]

Experiences are also constructed by the objective perspective. You can't experience without someone who is experiencing. That's my opinion, anyway. It's not a question of experiences...there are things, er....thing-ing. To a lively and interested mind perhaps it doesn't seem so exciting.

As to nihilism, this is not a nihilist perspective. It's a straight-down-the-line non-dualist perspective. The feelings that come up as a result of encountering non-dualism direct on are the feelings that the person is pushing out of awareness. The notion that non-dualism is nihilist is a common one, not because it has any veracity, but because people usually cling to any semblance of meaning in their life regardless of whether it has validity or not. They are frequently not so concerned with truth if it doesn't look like they want it to.

If you don't like non-dualism then why not just say so? If it makes you feel a lack of meaning I think it's better to say this. I find that more honest, personally.

Nick

See there you go trying to fit me into your categories, for someone who supposedly doesn't objectify things, you sure seem to be motivated to objectify and categorise my thoughts and behaviors.

Kind of strange that.

I can try to try to communicate with you but it seems that you either are just pigeon holing me without trying to understand my POV or you are just lecturing me on the way that I should be using words. I am really trying to understand where you are trying to express yourself, but you don't seem interested in common language.

I am thing that is thinging but you tell me that i am not thinging appropraitly.

Whatever.



If I am a thing, and I am thinging, I notice that my two eyes things differently, is that okay?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

1.) Science describes the behavior of what we experience, nothing more.

And then again there are people who swears that science says that the world is material. And then deny it and twist the meaning of the word "materialism" in order to say that they wanted to say, all the time, what you are saying

A skeptical perspective on the matter would be of use to anyone addicted to shallow ideologies about ultimate substances.

Indeed!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Experiences are also constructed by the objective perspective. You can't experience without someone who is experiencing. That's my opinion, anyway.

IMO, it is not only possible but real (and you were the one talking about non duality) to enter a state (of consciousness) in which there is just EXPERIENCE, no one is there experiencing and they are not experiences about nothing.

 

[Nick227]

IMO, it is not only possible but real (and you were the one talking about non duality) to enter a state (of consciousness) in which there is just EXPERIENCE, no one is there experiencing and they are not experiences about nothing.

I guess it depends on what one considers an experience. Without the presence of the belief in an "I," to whom then is the experience happening? Then again, the experience of having a personal identity happens to no one, but it happens. I guess it can be seen as simply a function of limited self-awareness. People assume there is an "I" and don't check it out. Thus the belief prevails, sustained by identification.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

That's correct. But this is very difficult step. I can't really blame people like Pixy when they don't get it. They are accustomed to think in maps and territories, and forget that they naively assume that there is always a real, concrete territory, that we are cartographers and that every map is more real than the previous ones.

In other words, they are as naive as any other woo.

You also can't blame Pixy because he is just a machine believing it has a personal identity. Until the "I" has been examined any notion of free will is nonsensical. Whilst that belief persists unchallenged Pixy is trapped in a state of determined reaction believing it to be personal choice.

Blaming is only of value if you have a specific objective in mind when you blame.

Nick

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I believe in reincarnation... of sock puppets.

For the life of me I can't remember who I called hammy. I know it's there in my brain somewhere. What was that name?

Nevermind, I see it now, hammegk. How could I forget? I just haven't been in any threads with him lately. How did he get banned?

 

[Robin]

Hi, Hammy. How've you been?

I had this feeling for a while - it was his insistence on accusations of Dualism to cover the basic incoherence of Idealism.

However I seem to remember Hammy had a rather different style, shorter posts for a start.

 

[Mobyseven]

For the life of me I can't remember who I called hammy. I know it's there in my brain somewhere. What was that name?

Nevermind, I see it now, hammegk. How could I forget? I just haven't been in any threads with him lately. How did he get banned?

Hammy has been banned for ages - abusive PMs to mods, iirc.

This was just a very well done sock puppet - stuck around for quite some time without giving it away. In the end, however, the truth will out...