I'm not.
Subjectivity and Science
- Thread starter John Freestone
- Start date
I'm not.
I was asked to give an example of something being scientifically verified, not to define science.
Nick
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
You ask them. You ask them if it hurts, where it hurts, how much it hurts. And you know what? People are pretty good at telling you. (Well, not babies. Babies are a problem.) Sure, they can't tell you it's their left kidney, but they can point.
And you know what else? Every time you ask those questions, it also confirms personal identity and limited self as real, physical phenomena.
So, psychology isn't science, but measuring a table is?
If instead of asking them a question that was actually apropos, I stuck them in a scanner and ran an FMRI of their brains, would that be science?
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
I was explaining why you failed.
I'm not saying it happens to someone else, merely that the notion that these thoughts, doings, sayings and experiences have possession cannot be validated. They happen. The idea that they happen to someone is a mental construct. It is the result of using a mental filter to sort data.
Without the filter, everything is still happening but it's no longer happening to anyone. This idea of a limited experiencer is entirely notional.
Nick
So what do you think was scientifically verified in your example?
The length of the table, through use of instrumentation and repetition of the measurement.
Nick
Psychology is mostly soft science. You ask people things. Hard science usually has apparatus, machines.
That would be choosing hard science over soft science.
Nick
Thanks DancingDavid...it's just that this whole idea of spirituality staying strictly within the realm of spirituality and not crossing over to have some sort of "magical" effect on the physical world is somewhat new to me.
I had this friend ( now deceased ) who was into Shamanism is a big way. And by in a big way I mean he'd do things like eat beans and rice to save money, but spend $200 on a mortar and pestle set. Never once did I hear him say anything about using his spirituality to attempt to influence the physical world or appeal to that spirituality in order to try and overcome several challenges he faced in his personal life. ( glaucoma, poverty )
Thing is, he never talked about his mysticism....ever. I didn't even know how into it he was until after his death and after reading your posts, I'm assuming it was a 'what happens in the circle, stays in the circle" attitude.
As an aside....this guy had a garden, that he'd built up over years, comprised of exclusively ethnogenic plants and when I'd make cracks like "hey lets boil up some of that cactus and get ripped" he'd look at me with a look of absolute horror on his face.
Hi Lupus,
I listened to the first lecture, thanks for linking it. It has a promising title, but seemed mostly to be dealing with the experience of "my" and not so much "I." I'm familiar a little with Ramachandran's work with DID and similar and how he has pinned the experience of self-representation and body image to certain areas of the brain. I don't however really see how this does anything other than underpin what I am saying.
The experience of personal identity is no doubt a function of brain activity, I don't dispute it. Yet whilst this validates the experience of personal identity, as a natural function of the brain, this experience is not a permanent limitation placed upon our awareness. The seat of conscious awareness can go deeper than this.
Nick
Last edited:
Ok so consider the following two people:
Person A: The table is Xmm long by observation
Person B: the table is Xmm long plus a bit that I can see when I close my eyes and concentrate really hard.
How long do you think the table is?
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
This is the part that is most fundamental to this discussion, and so very hard to get through people's heads. Claims about subjectivity and and the lack of absolute answers from science are not excuses to make things up and then present your idle imaginings as valid alternatives to the generally accepted views about reality.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Here's the question: what is the difference between what you claim, and what everyone is saying to you, from a practical standpoint? Can you see through walls, read minds, or tell the future?
What differentiates what you claim being true from it being nothing more than the product of your overactive imagination?
Bodhi Dharma Zen
Advaitin
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,926
Joe Joe Joe! calm down!!! are you seriously affected in this way when someone criticizes your materialism?
I'm impressed.
That said, you have not answered anything of value. My opinions? Yes, I have some, but we are not talking about them, nor their importance or even their relevance. I just made a couple of concrete critics to materialist beliefs, and like it is often said in this forum it is up to materialists to answer them. The burden of proof lies in the one who makes an assertion.
So, if you believe consciousness have been explained please post the explanation and we can see if it works or it doesn't.
Last edited:
I'm not Joe but I'll have a go in one sentence (though books mentioned already cover this better):
Conciousness is the sum total of all brain processes, the subroutine that handles sight, the subroutine that handles thought, the subroutine that handles taste etc when taken as a whole is conciousness.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
Yes. I'm glad you concede that point, although it was directed specifically at PixyMisa.
I've come back now without evidence (although I don't know to what proposition you assume I need to bring it), so presumably you won't want to discuss it, as you didn't earlier. Within the guidelines, I'll do what I want here, thanks anyway.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I'm almost late for a great discussion!! Of course you can deny consciousness, you can deny anythingbut things are a bit more complex than what materialist are able to think.
I have argued extensively here with some hard core materialists, exposing all their weakness and rendering their beloved materialism as what it is... SIMPLY WOO. Yet, as I believe you know by now, they keep posting the same nonsense over and over and over
Anyway, I will read here and there and post comments soon.
Hiya BDZ!
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
they are confined to the boundaries of the body I am labeled as being.
My thoughts may be understood by others and communicated through physical media.
What evidence is there to the contrary.
Yes 'i' and 'mine' are self referential labels as is all langiage.
They refer to the body which is currently typing.
It does not belong to anything, it just is.
As of yet all the evidence I have been presented would indicate that the thoughts, sensation, perceptions, emotions and habit are confined to single bodies.
When this body ceases it's biological processes then the materials of body will be transformed.
However from what evidence is available, the thoughts that are part of that body (is that impersonal enough) will cease.
lupus_in_fabula
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,631
Nick227 said:
Well, I tried to give an example about what neuroscience is actually doing in this department (self/no-self). The whole notion about introspection, experiences of no-self and non-duality being something unique among scientists is simply not true. It seems to me that proponents of non-duality are making a big fuss about their experiences and prematurely jump to conclusions about reality that they cannot substantiate at all. I have also had experiences of non-duality, and yes, it appears as if the self disappears. Nevertheless, that does not warrant me to make any claims about them being deeper or truer in the “objective” or intersubjective sense. In short: there’s no valid reason to make claims about reality because of the subjective experiences I had, simply because they cannot be substantiated outside myself. If I want to know something valuable about reality, I still look for scientific evidence; that’s far more reliable and meaningful than extraordinary states of consciousness. To sum up: there’s no evidence that the experience of “oneness” is something else than yet another experience created by the brain (“my” brain), profoundly different than normally perhaps, but another state nonetheless.
I think the biggest problem in this discussion is how everyone is presenting their case. No one can strengthen their own case by criticizing science, that’s neither logical nor rational. If you criticize “objective” observation as not really objective, and at the same time propose your private experiences as more real than observed facts, then I have to say that you still have no credible case whatsoever.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
That body will cease to exist as the labels of life would be matched to it.
It will become other oganisms hopefully and return to a state of chaotic involvement in the biomass.
However that body and all it's attendant processes will most likely cease.
Speculation is fine but i have seen no evidence that there will be anything other than the decomposition and reuptake.
If there is something beyond the physical body that will be very cool. But meaningless to me now.