Subjectivity and Science

[Nick227]

I agree, all thoughts are equally true and equally false , the objective part if more a matter of isotropy and causal relations. Or the appearance thereof. Objectivity does not involve an actual 'outside' viewpoint.

Sorry, I don't know what isotropy is, so I can't discuss it.

What I do understand is that for something to be considered objective there needs to be a clear sense of boundary - an object and a subject. This boundary is constructed by the mind. It is not real in the way that sensory experience is real. It is a filter through which sensory information passes and, hey presto, the experience of objectivity arises.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The truth is, reality is either a) exactly what it appears to be, given the assumptions currently accepted by science, or b) currently unknowable... and that includes "unknowable by you," no matter how much navel gazing you engage in.

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true? At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old. Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know. You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

Nick

 

[Irony]

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true? At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old. Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know. You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

Nick

Most of us here have looked at those assumptions Nick. What you seem to not understand is that it is unnecessary to continue looking at them day-in and day-out. The crime of nihilism is not that it is invalid. The crime of nihilism is that it is useless in every respect and flat-out boring.

 

[Nick227]

Most of us here have looked at those assumptions Nick. What you seem to not understand is that it is unnecessary to continue looking at them day-in and day-out. The crime of nihilism is not that it is invalid. The crime of nihilism is that it is useless in every respect and flat-out boring.

What has nihilism to do with it? Experientially, non-duality is way more exciting than objectivity. The latter just gets like some sad old man's control trip after a while.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

What has nihilism to do with it? Experientially, non-duality is way more exciting than objectivity.

"Exciting?"

Only if you think make-believe fantasies are more exciting than reality.

 

[JoeEllison]

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true? At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old. Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know. You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

Nick

You've managed to find the one sure way of never, ever finding out "what actually is true." I keep trying to get it through your head, the reason why people stop thinking so much down the path you've chosen is that it leads absolutely nowhere. You can while about those mean old scientists rejecting your "brilliant" ideas... or, you can grow up a little, and consider the fact that your ideas aren't new, original, or intelligent.

 

[Stout]

To create the interface I assume with goog reason that there are many ways that our brains process information.
.

You know...I spent about an hour staring at that post and searching out the terms I was unfamiliar with. Turns out it was only the terms and not the basic concepts that were a stumbling block.

Mind you I'm still hung up on 'pattern recognition' paradigm.

How would you describe your mysticism and it's relationship with the material world ? From reading your post I'm under the impression that there isn't much of, if any relationship and your mystic explorations are more geared to examining your own perceptions about how you, personally view things and, by extension, how others view things.

I find intuition to be rather straight forward there's certain clues given off by people and situations that one can be sensitive to but not necessarily identify on the spot. maybe, in retrospect one could think about those "clues" and rationalise their feelings.

However, at the time one is making a decision based on intuition it can seem like "the vibes" are being communicated to you from an outside source.

 

[PixyMisa]

For sure, we don't know what creates the experience of personal identity at a brain level, but maybe one day we find out.

As I said, we know it's created by the brain. What exactly are you looking for?

However, whilst locating this process would to my mind confirm that the experience of personal identity is a natural experience, this doesn't alter the fact that if you can raise your self-awareness sufficiently then you do actually become aware of this process and can look underneath.

No you can't. No amount of introspection can make you aware of your own biochemistry.

This is what I'm talking about. When you can consciously experience the process of identification with thought, usually an unconscious process, you become aware of a deeper level of reality. It doesn't look any different, but the "I-not I" filter is gone. You have the choice to look through that filter and respond to situations as though there was a personal identity, or to not.

Utter nonsense.

No matter how addled your metaphysics, if I administer a general anaesthetic to your body, it is your mind that gets switched off. And if I administer a general anaesthetic to someone else's body, your mind is not affected.

If your focus is on self-awareness, and creating more of it, you will eventually become directly aware of the process by which the experience of personal identity is created. You then have a choice.

Nope.

Pixy, you are trying to relate monism through the eyes of duality.

Nope.

You are assuming here that duality is primary.

Nope.

It is secondary.

And nope.

There is no dualism. There is no subject-object divide. The subjective is a subset of the objective.

In monism there is no point from which to make an objective evaluation, you cannot stand outside of the system.

You cannot stand outside of any logically consitent monist ontology: True, but entirely irrelevant. We can approach objectivity as closely as we like by understanding what subjectivity is - how our perceptions work, how our minds work - and removing those variables from our observations. That is exactly what science does.

 

[PixyMisa]

This demonstrates that people have the experience of having a personal identity.

Yes.

I am asking if you can scientifically demonstrate that that experience is a priori real, and not simply an untested assumption.

Yes. It's the same thing.

Personal identity is informational. Information is substrate-neutral. There is no such thing as an illusion of information. A mirage of a lake is not a lake, but a mirage of a paragraph of text is a paragraph of text.

So if people believe they have personal identity, if they say they experience it, then they do.

Is there anything in your experience of being alive which can empirically validate your assumption of limited selfhood?

Good grief. Everything validates the concept of limited selfhood. It's not limited to humans, it's not limited to creatures with brains, it's not even limited to living things.

If I put you under a general anaesthetic, your consciousness goes away, not anyone else's. The world is unchanged apart from that.

If I poke a planarian or a venus flytrap with a pin, it's that planarian, that flytrap, that responds. Not you, not me, not the tree outside or the squirrels in the tree.

If I hit a rock with a hammer, that rock breaks, not the rock next to it, or the one a mile away. It doesn't start to rain frogs, or turn from day into night, and nothing is inscribed upon the sky in blazing letters. The rock breaks.

 

[Apathia]

What has nihilism to do with it? Experientially, non-duality is way more exciting than objectivity. The latter just gets like some sad old man's control trip after a while.

Nick

Nick227,

I haven't been folowing this thread just because of the title. "Subjectivity" is often a woo word on this board, inviting misunderstanding and accusation.
But I've noticed your posts, and I just wanted to say I get your drift.
And I understand what's "exciting" about being an integral participant in reality, that isn't a metaphysical dualism between observing ego and observed objects, or mind and matter.

The ghost of Cartesian Dualism haunts even this skeptic's board. And some who certainly disbelieve in the soul or spirits still grant a metaphysical status to the fictions of the observing ego and conceptualized objects.

Of course, we observe ourselves as seperate selves, but we are also able to apprehend non-duality and our integration with reality. Though individual experiences of the dynamic of selfhood vary.

I take it that you are trying to point to a more fundamental Objectivity that is beyond the usual subjective/objective dicotomy, because it lets reality be on its own terms without the imposition of this conceptual, almost metaphysical, ego that claims itself the center of the universe.

We in our narrow range of interaction with reality at large (and very small) make so many "common sense" assumptions without close examination of what we are bringing to the table.

And this is not a criticism of Science. The wonder of the scientific persuit is that has so often contradicted our anthropocentric and egotistical prejudices.

Let's hear it for empericism!

 

[PixyMisa]

What I do understand is that for something to be considered objective there needs to be a clear sense of boundary - an object and a subject.

Nope.

This boundary is constructed by the mind.

What do you mean "constructed by the mind"? If you're talking about what people think, then everything we think is in some sense "constructed by the mind", so the statement is superfluous. If you're talking about something other than thoughts, the statement is wrong.

It is not real in the way that sensory experience is real. It is a filter through which sensory information passes and, hey presto, the experience of objectivity arises.

Nope. There's no such filter. There's no such experience.

We assume that our senses are relaying information from the outside world, because that is indeed what they do unless something is seriously out of whack. When there is doubt, we stop and check, seeking additional sensory information to confirm or deny the status of that particular perception (or don't, with sometimes tragic results).

There's no "experience of objectivity". We see things. We hear things. We assume those things are external, and for the most part, we're right.

 

[PixyMisa]

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true?

Nope. I just want to know what we observe.

At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old.

Done that.

Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know.

Did it only because it's useful.

You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

Nope.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

[Insert "Epic Fail" macro here.]

 

[PixyMisa]

I take it that you are trying to point to a more fundamental Objectivity that is beyond the usual subjective/objective dicotomy, because it lets reality be on its own terms without the imposition of this conceptual, almost metaphysical, ego that claims itself the center of the universe.

Um, don't know how to tell you this, but Nick isn't being metaphorical. He means exactly what he says. Which is unfortunate, because as metaphor, what Nick says might be interesting. Taken literally, of course, it's complete nonsense.

 

[69dodge]

I mean can you demonstrate that the thought has possession at all? That it belongs to anyone?

I don't know what you mean by "belongs" in this context. Presumably, you don't mean it in any legal sort of sense, the way your computer belongs to you because you bought it but my computer doesn't because you didn't. And, you agree that there are thoughts that you are aware of, which no one else is aware of, but you still wouldn't necessarily describe those thoughts as belonging to you. So, what do you mean by "belongs", then? I honestly have no idea.

If you can experience non-duality, which looks no different from what you see now, you can quickly understand how instant communication could take place across the whole universe. This is because the whole sense of perspective and of distance arises only because of our notion of limited selfhood.

I don't follow. It looks no different from what I see now? Then why would it change my mind about anything---like, for example, the probability that instant communication is possible?

But anyway, that's something that can be checked. You may feel as though you could communicate instantly with someone far away, but can you actually do it? If not, shouldn't you conclude that your mystical experiences have deceived you about the nature of reality, rather than revealed it to you?

 

[PixyMisa]

How do you know what is inside and what is outside?

I take a look. Unless something really bad has happened, or I'm studying topology, this is usually pretty obvious.

Surely the experience of some things being outside of me, for example this keyboard, arises as a result of the belief that I am the body.

Vice-versa.

I have nothing against the materialist point of view, though people tell me that quantum physicists have issues with it, due to instant communication or something.

Nope. Quantum Mechanics doesn't allow for instant communication, nor does it conflict with materialism.

If you can experience non-duality, which looks no different from what you see now, you can quickly understand how instant communication could take place across the whole universe.

It can't.

(Just as an aside: Materialism in itself has no problem with instantaneous communications. It's reality that has the problem.)

This is because the whole sense of perspective and of distance arises only because of our notion of limited selfhood.

Again, this is backwards. We have a notion of limited selfhood because we are physically separated from other things.

As I pointed out a few posts up, there is no way around the fact that this is the order of causality except through a minefield of metaphysical baloney. If I hit a planarian with a hammer, it is that planarian that goes squish, and not any other.

Always.

I guess I get a bit skeptical of it, and other scientific pronouncements, as the scientists mostly don't examine their assumptions.

You keep claiming this. You have never presented any evidence for this claim.

And you use this baseless assertion to ignore mountains of evidence confirming Quantum Mechanics, including the computer you are posting from, which would not work otherwise.

I would love to hear more of science from anyone who's aware of the assumptions of the objective mindset, but these guys seem a bit few and far between.

Not true. There are lots of working scientists who understand this. I won't claim that all of them do, but it's not something that's ignored by the scientific community.

Mostly they seem happy to just keep focussing outward.

Yes, that's absolutely right. Because they are scientists, not philosophers. They are trying to discover fact, not truth.

If the results of the experiment cannot be detached from the experiment itself, except through a conceptualisation, what does this really mean?

I don't know what it means. Looks like nonsense to me.

 

[dannagain]

Traditionally the student is told to sit facing a wall, incidentally,

Only in Soto Zen. In Rinzai Zen you sit facing away from the wall. In other types of Buddhism there are no walls (man).

and begin a rigorous internal philosophical enquiry.

(In Soto Zen), my teacher just tells you to sit there. No philosophical enquiry. You just sit. Shikanataza in Japanese is the name for it which translates as 'just sitting'.

In Rinzai they do all that koan stuff while meditating but I can't really see the use in that.

 

[Nick227]

I take it that you are trying to point to a more fundamental Objectivity that is beyond the usual subjective/objective dicotomy, because it lets reality be on its own terms without the imposition of this conceptual, almost metaphysical, ego that claims itself the center of the universe.

Hi Apathia,

I follow what you are saying and I agree.

I find that there is the experience of egoic identification with a narrow limitation of form (body, feelings, thoughts) and there is the experience of identifying with either all or form or nothing of it.

Pretty much everyone has the former, and naturally assumes that it is a "given," a permanent reality common to all humans. But when the latter occurs, even for a brief period, the truth of the situation becomes clear. The mind ascribes identity to certain aspects of its experience of life and labels others aspects "not I." This process is not innate. It simply arises as a result of some brain or mind process, and can be overcome by deepening self-awareness.

We in our narrow range of interaction with reality at large (and very small) make so many "common sense" assumptions without close examination of what we are bringing to the table.

And this is not a criticism of Science. The wonder of the scientific persuit is that has so often contradicted our anthropocentric and egotistical prejudices.

Let's hear it for empericism!

Completely!

What I find so intriguing about the JREF forum is that so many members are only too vocal to declaim psychicism and all manner of related phenomena, on the grounds that it cannot be scientifically proven, but are quite unwilling to ask for experimental validation of their own sense of limited selfhood, which is just as tentative as psychicism! They just assume its there, and are usually just as wont to avoid dealing with the question as a psychic under the spotlight might be.

Nick

 

[Dancing David]

How does this substantiate personal identity? Are you saying that a single organism needs a sense of personal identity in order to act?

Nick

No.

I mean that a definition of an individual can be created from the boundaries of a physical body.

'Personal identity' is a thought and therefore subject to uses which are invalid.

 

[Dancing David]

How do you know what is inside and what is outside? Surely the experience of some things being outside of me, for example this keyboard, arises as a result of the belief that I am the body.

I have nothing against the materialist point of view, though people tell me that quantum physicists have issues with it, due to instant communication or something. If you can experience non-duality, which looks no different from what you see now, you can quickly understand how instant communication could take place across the whole universe. This is because the whole sense of perspective and of distance arises only because of our notion of limited selfhood.

Nick

I don't recall using the terms you seem to think I am using. The world is what it is, one can be part of it. One in this case being an apparent physical body.

All things unique and interdependant.

Um, before I say that you have taken a trip to Wooville, what can you show me that shows 'instant communication', could be that there are speculations by some people that haven't been supported by the data yet.

Show me this communication at a distance, finger/moon issues aside.

 

[Dancing David]

Nothing really.

I guess I get a bit skeptical of it, and other scientific pronouncements, as the scientists mostly don't examine their assumptions. I would love to hear more of science from anyone who's aware of the assumptions of the objective mindset, but these guys seem a bit few and far between. Mostly they seem happy to just keep focussing outward.

If the results of the experiment cannot be detached from the experiment itself, except through a conceptualisation, what does this really mean?

Nick

Nothing, it would be meaningless, the fact that i am electromagneticaly interacting with my chair is what it is. The fact that I label it a chair does not change the combustion tempertaure of the materials in it. At least that has been demonstrated yet.

The results of an experiment are part of the experiment, it is an a priori requirement that they need to be seperated and not meaningful.

Of couse they can not be seperated, that does not change the fact (apparent) that water will boil at a certain 'temperature' at a certain air pressure.

We are unique and interconnected.