Subjectivity and Science

[JoeEllison]

Objective science is entirely conceptual. This is because the subject-object divide is entirely conceptual. It cannot be demonstrated to be true. It's an assumption. Personal identity is conceptual. One might consider the experience of having a personal identity valid, but it cannot be substantiated through observing any actual phenomena. It is entirely conceptual.

Because it is wholy conceptual, science cannot investigate the nature of reality. It can only investigate relationships between apparent phenomena. As a tool for making life easier for people, science is bloody great. As an means to investigate reality, it is utterly useless, and it is entirely delusional to believe otherwise.

If anyone feels they can empirically demonstrate personal identity - and ergo the subject-object divide, objectivity, and science - please do so.

Nick

That's nice. Can you imagine another way of going about the problem, in a meaningful way? Because, from my perspective, you have basically created a giant impenetrable brick wall. That's fine, as far as it goes... but you cannot go any further.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ok, we are probably both in agreement that I can't move my mug by psychokinesis, but the possibility that we project our beliefs onto reality to some extent (as described above) suggests to me that the possibility of powers that science would consider 'supernatural' might exist for those who are not so bound by the same mental constructs as we are.

There's no problem with the idea of a "possibility," the problem is that possibilities are pretty much useless. They don't really do anything, besides lay there and twitch a bit when you poke them.

 

[Nick227]

That's nice. Can you imagine another way of going about the problem, in a meaningful way? Because, from my perspective, you have basically created a giant impenetrable brick wall. That's fine, as far as it goes... but you cannot go any further.

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide. Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged. The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic. From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds. Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Whew! Thanks Nick. The way we construct the argument is different, but it amounts to the same conclusion, that science does not investigate the real world 'objectively'. I would probably prefer to offer this as a possibility, or a possibility that I strongly suspect is true, rather than an absolute statement of fact, but even the possibility is refuted by the physicalists, they are so under the spell of their 'rigorous' definitions, scrupulous measurement and experimental repetition. Actually, you don't exactly put it as fact, but challenge anyone who feels able to prove otherwise. Interestingly, one of the earlier stages of insight in meditation is often reported as seeing through the habitual separation of observer and observed, and I can attest to it myself.

Hi John,

Well, I would say that science does investigate the world objectively, but that objectivity is merely a construct, something which, as you point out, mystics have been saying for aeons.

There seems to be a Tinkerbell mindset these days amongst many scientists, and those who are big fans of objectivity - that if you can just get everyone to believe that objectivity is real then it will become so.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Whew! Thanks Nick. The way we construct the argument is different, but it amounts to the same conclusion, that science does not investigate the real world 'objectively'. I would probably prefer to offer this as a possibility, or a possibility that I strongly suspect is true, rather than an absolute statement of fact, but even the possibility is refuted by the physicalists, they are so under the spell of their 'rigorous' definitions, scrupulous measurement and experimental repetition. Actually, you don't exactly put it as fact, but challenge anyone who feels able to prove otherwise. Interestingly, one of the earlier stages of insight in meditation is often reported as seeing through the habitual separation of observer and observed, and I can attest to it myself.

Hi John,

Well, I would say that science does investigate the world objectively, but that objectivity is merely a construct, something which, as you point out, mystics have been saying for aeons.

There seems to be a Tinkerbell mindset these days amongst many scientists, and those who are big fans of objectivity - that if you can just get everyone to believe that objectivity is real then it will become so.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide. Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged. The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic. From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds. Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.

Nick

My point is that if you claim that reality is being viewed through a "mental construct", or if you claim that reality IS a "mental construct," what you wind up with is an intellectual dead end, unless you can propose a means for stepping outside of the universe and/or self for a more objective view.

Subjectivity is inherent in any viewpoint, by definition. Science seeks to minimize that subjectivity, in order to learn about the universe. It seems to me that some others seek to expand subjectivity, in order to allow themselves the freedom to pretend that their more fanciful/delusional worldviews are more valid.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide. Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged.

I assume you think there is such a thing as the mind (something that can construct the experience of the subject-object divide)?

The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.

I have to disagree somewhat. Scientists talk about objectivity in the pragmatic sense, i.e., trying to be as objective as possible (fully knowing it’s an ideal never to be reached). It’s not challenged because there’s nothing to do about it, except conducting research in a “less subjective” manner. It’s probably one of the first things you stumble across when learning science. If you talk about self-examination as in examining how everything about the world is “your” experience of it (i.e. “the map is not the territory”), then it’s also pretty self evident. I’m not sure why anyone wouldn’t recognize this. It only seems to be new stuff for people who criticise science in order to promote their own subjective worldview (they are of course hopelessly late in their usually trivial recognition).

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic. From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds. Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.

I would say that most scientist ascribe to some form of monism. I wouldn’t, however, call the experience of duality artificial; it’s still a natural part of how we humans experience reality; perhaps even more natural than the experience of “oneness” or whatever you’d like to call it. It’s such a natural part of our reality that medicine and our gadgets seem to work quite well on their own.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

My point is that if you claim that reality is being viewed through a "mental construct", or if you claim that reality IS a "mental construct," what you wind up with is an intellectual dead end, unless you can propose a means for stepping outside of the universe and/or self for a more objective view.

Subjectivity is inherent in any viewpoint, by definition. Science seeks to minimize that subjectivity, in order to learn about the universe. It seems to me that some others seek to expand subjectivity, in order to allow themselves the freedom to pretend that their more fanciful/delusional worldviews are more valid.

Sorry Joe, you already said much of what I did. I didn’t see your post when I was writing my own.

 

[Stout]

Hi John..maybe shooting down my idea wasn't the best way to put it, after all I did say i didn't understand the rest of your post. But if my firewalking and belief that I can just go do it based on "belief" generated by my knowledge of the process isn't an example of science being a belief then...

I tried the visionary approach, with the guy who envisions space travel based on his current knowledge of,,well, fireworks and following that "belief" or vision by encouraging his son to experiment. If that's not how science can called a belief then....

I'm out of ideas...

Except the one that says that in order to accept the idea that science is a belief, then one has to already subscribe to another belief system that one feels trumps science in the quest to determine what the "meaning of life" really is.

I don't subscribe to any belief system myself. Sure there's a bit of appeal to a higher power going on sometimes in my life. It's pretty minor though, like throwing the odd coin in a wishing well, or crossing my fingers but what I'm really doing is appealing to luck.

I'm looking at science as THE way to explain the way the world works by default but I can't say I'm comfortable calling it any sort of belief simply because science admits when it's wrong. Sometimes, science gets caught by other science and proved wrong, remember those cold fusion guys ? but in the long run, the bad science gets overrun by the good science.

I like that

Belief never seems to change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and I'm rather concerned about this. Why is belief so intent on asserting it's mastery over the world as we know it yet at the same time. refusing to demonstrate this mastery when asked to?

I've heard a lot of arguments about this, from the "presence of doubters" to "the universe doesn't feel you should know these things" to "your motivations for wanting to access this information are immoral" that I'm siding with the idea that these higher powers don't want to demonstrate their prowess because.....they can't.

I can understand belief playing a vital role in some-one's emotional happiness, and I understand the idea of belief being a motivator to bring about change so I'll give a nod in it's direction for having some value to some people. It's when it crosses the line into territory that knowledge has proven to be false, and continually asserts it's dominance over knowledge that belief can get....well...annoying at times.

After all, didn't the Bible teach a geocentric universe ? only to be proven, centuries later, to be false. Now most Christians go with the round earth idea, contrary to the Scriptures but they didn't adopt this idea easily. There was a lot of kicking and screaming IIRC, but knowledge won out in the end, didn't it ?

 

[Nick227]

My point is that if you claim that reality is being viewed through a "mental construct", or if you claim that reality IS a "mental construct," what you wind up with is an intellectual dead end, unless you can propose a means for stepping outside of the universe and/or self for a more objective view.

Hi Joe,

I would say more that reality is being processed through a mental construct. Our mind constructs the myriad situations it encounters as though there was a limited observer present and responds through the same filter.

You might feel that the reality of the situation represents a "dead end" or a "brick wall" but personally I don't see that this really justifies spending a lifetime lying to yourself.

Subjectivity is inherent in any viewpoint, by definition. Science seeks to minimize that subjectivity, in order to learn about the universe. It seems to me that some others seek to expand subjectivity, in order to allow themselves the freedom to pretend that their more fanciful/delusional worldviews are more valid.

Objectivity is totally fine. It's just good to remember that it is mentally constructed and not a priori real. Plenty of people are emotionally afraid of the intensity of objectivity and prefer to hide in subjectivity, this is true I'd say.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I assume you think there is such a thing as the mind (something that can construct the experience of the subject-object divide)?

For sure.

I have to disagree somewhat. Scientists talk about objectivity in the pragmatic sense, i.e., trying to be as objective as possible (fully knowing it’s an ideal never to be reached). It’s not challenged because there’s nothing to do about it, except conducting research in a “less subjective” manner. It’s probably one of the first things you stumble across when learning science. If you talk about self-examination as in examining how everything about the world is “your” experience of it (i.e. “the map is not the territory”), then it’s also pretty self evident. I’m not sure why anyone wouldn’t recognize this. It only seems to be new stuff for people who criticise science in order to promote their own subjective worldview (they are of course hopelessly late in their usually trivial recognition).

Well, what I meant when I said "it's not challenged" is that there is no limited observer, there is no personal "I", no personal identity. The world exists, the body exists, thoughts exist, feelings exist. But there is no evidence to suggest that any of these things belong to any limited entity. The presence of personal identity cannot be substantiated empirically. It is simply an unchallenged assumption the mind makes. And from this unchallenged assumption, objectivity arises, and with it science.

I would say that most scientist ascribe to some form of monism. I wouldn’t, however, call the experience of duality artificial; it’s still a natural part of how we humans experience reality; perhaps even more natural than the experience of “oneness” or whatever you’d like to call it. It’s such a natural part of our reality that medicine and our gadgets seem to work quite well on their own.

Yes, I would agree. The experience of duality certainly arises and can be bloody good fun. I've not met so many scientists who ascribed to monism though. Perhaps I should hang out in different circles! Yes, the medicine and gadgets do seem to work.

Nick

 

[69dodge]

Funny thing is that if you define the world as utterly spiritual, all the matter being explained as maya (illusion), it all makes about as much sense in its own internal logic too...

But what difference does it make whether we choose to call matter "matter", or to call it "the illusion of matter"? We're still left with the problem of discovering how it behaves, or how it appears to behave, as the case may be.

Calling it illusory is not an explanation. Neither is calling it real, to be sure. "Illusory" and "real" are just words. A detailed description of its behavior, such as is given by a scientific theory, is an explanation.

PixyMisa says that someone who walks across a red-hot slab of iron will burn his feet off. I assume you agree. You say that patients sometimes benefit from being given placebos. I assume he agrees.

So, what are we arguing about, exactly?

 

[PixyMisa]

Objective science is entirely conceptual. This is because the subject-object divide is entirely conceptual.

What subject-object divide?

It cannot be demonstrated to be true. It's an assumption. Personal identity is conceptual. One might consider the experience of having a personal identity valid, but it cannot be substantiated through observing any actual phenomena. It is entirely conceptual.

Nope. It's a commonly observed phenomenon.

Because it is wholy conceptual, science cannot investigate the nature of reality. It can only investigate relationships between apparent phenomena. As a tool for making life easier for people, science is bloody great. As an means to investigate reality, it is utterly useless, and it is entirely delusional to believe otherwise.

Relationships between apparent phenomena are all we have access to. Therefore there is no basis for stating that these do not represent reality.

If anyone feels they can empirically demonstrate personal identity - and ergo the subject-object divide, objectivity, and science - please do so.

What subject-object divide?

 

[JoeEllison]

Hi Joe,

I would say more that reality is being processed through a mental construct. Our mind constructs the myriad situations it encounters as though there was a limited observer present and responds through the same filter.

You might feel that the reality of the situation represents a "dead end" or a "brick wall" but personally I don't see that this really justifies spending a lifetime lying to yourself.

Where have I "lied to myself"?

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide.

Speaking in terms of human learning, sure. In terms of science, there is no subject-object divide: That's assumption one. Metaphysical naturalism, hence methodological naturalism.

Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged.

Why do you say it's "constructed by the mind"? Seems to me that it would be entirely more reasonable to say that its construction is part of the construction of the mind.

The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.

That might be interesting to you and to clinical psychologists, but it has no relevance to the system of science.

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic.

You can assume that. It's a reasonable assumption. You can't demonstrate it, though.

From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds.

What subject-object separation?

Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.

Nick, remember this, if you remember anything: Science doesn't care what you believe. So long as you follow the rules, you can carry out valid scientific research even if your personal metaphysics makes TimeCube guy look like Euclid. And whether you follow the rules or not, the results that science produces work.

Your "mentally constructed artifical framework" is completely irrelevant.

 

[Nick227]

Speaking in terms of human learning, sure. In terms of science, there is no subject-object divide: That's assumption one. Metaphysical naturalism, hence methodological naturalism.

Hi PM,

Are you saying science disputes the existence of a limited observer, of a sense of separation? It's a new one on me if so, or am I misunderstanding you? How are you going to have objectivity without separation?

Why do you say it's "constructed by the mind"? Seems to me that it would be entirely more reasonable to say that its construction is part of the construction of the mind.

Well, one might perhaps say that the experience of having a personal identity is natural in that it may arise as a result of a natural brain process. No one has, as far as I'm aware, located this process as yet, but with the way brain research is advancing I'd say it's possible in the future.

I say "constructed by the mind" because this means of describing it leaves room for the deeper, non-dual state.

That might be interesting to you and to clinical psychologists, but it has no relevance to the system of science.

My experience is that most scientists assume the primacy of the subject-object divide without question. They just take it as a given. It is not a given, it is a temporary mental construct, as one very quickly realises when it dissipates, even if only for a short while.

You can assume that. It's a reasonable assumption. You can't demonstrate it, though.

Well, yes and no! In non-duality you can demonstrate anything but it no longer has such a sense of meaning attached to it. The demonstration is just going on like everything else.

Nick, remember this, if you remember anything: Science doesn't care what you believe. So long as you follow the rules, you can carry out valid scientific research even if your personal metaphysics makes TimeCube guy look like Euclid. And whether you follow the rules or not, the results that science produces work.

I like science. It makes good toasters. It's very exciting but it cannot achieve anything really satisfying, I find, because it is simply proceeding from an unconscious assumption.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nope. It's a commonly observed phenomenon.

Can you substantiate personal identity scientifically?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Where have I "lied to myself"?

Hi Joe,

What I understood from your earlier comments, below, was that if your investigation of the nature of reality reveals to you a brick wall, or a dead end, then you should believe something different because this is not satisfying to the intellect. I would consider this choosing to believe a lie.

Am I not following you right?

Nick

My point is that if you claim that reality is being viewed through a "mental construct", or if you claim that reality IS a "mental construct," what you wind up with is an intellectual dead end

Because, from my perspective, you have basically created a giant impenetrable brick wall. That's fine, as far as it goes... but you cannot go any further.

 

[JoeEllison]

Hi Joe,

What I understood from your earlier comments, below, was that if your investigation of the nature of reality reveals to you a brick wall, or a dead end, then you should believe something different because this is not satisfying to the intellect. I would consider this choosing to believe a lie.

Am I not following you right?

Nick

No, you're exactly backwards in fact.

If your reasoning leads you to a brick wall, to a place where you have reached the limits of possible knowledge, the only "lie" is to claim that you somehow know what's behind that wall.

The claim that there is no objective reality, that subjectivity somehow leads to a state where we cannot make any objective claims about reality, is just that sort of brick wall. We accept the assumption of an objective reality, not because we know it to be absolute "truth", but because it is the only assumption that can lead to anything useful. If we can never be truly objective, the best we can hope for is a "shared subjectivity," a commonality of experience and a repeatability of experimental results.

And, here's the kicker: anyone who rejects the assumption of a shared, common objective reality? They have absolutely nothing more to add to any discussion, because of that rejection.[/i] That's your dead end, full stop, I hope you were wearing your seat belt.

 

[PixyMisa]

Can you substantiate personal identity scientifically?

Yes.