Subjectivity and Science

[Soapy Sam]

Where is the "danger" in a poison?
Where is the "speed" in a sports car?
Where is the "fun" in fundamental research?
Where is the "spreadsheet" in my PC?
Where is the "consciousness" in a brain?

These questions are grammatically well founded. Some, however, make more sense than others. Because a question can be formulated with a particular structure does not imply that it must be answerable with that structure.

Neural activity is a widely distributed and multi level process. It is damnably hard to sense it directly in ourselves. We can, however, probe its limits.
Try counting backwards from 1000, preferably in a foreign language, while systematically adding a number of simple tasks- patting one knee/ drawing a circle in the air / dialling a phone number, whatever. Consciousness has rather severe limits, which vary- though not hugely- between individuals.
Before proposing sweeping models of what awareness or identity actually are, doing some research might be worthwhile. Or, failing that, reading some that others have done.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi Martu,

If you can see and feel your body it is evident that you are not your body.

Um not really.

How does it work can you verbally diagram it?

My contention would be that the body is those things. There is nothing seperate from the body or the apparent physical world. If there is something different how is it demonstrated.

You seem to be delving into duality of Descate or Kant.

If you are aware of emotions and sensations then it is evident that you are not your emotions or sensations.

Not really that is just an assertion.

Awareness is a biological function.
I can run through my thinking if you wish.

take anesthesia for example.

Or is this some sort of TV set consciousness?

However there remains the belief that these things are "yours."

No, even the buddha thought differently, the body merely exists, the thoughts, emotions, sensations, perceptions and habits are the body and it is them.

If you act to deepen your self-awareness you will become progressively aware of your thought patterns. With each rise in awareness it will become evident that you are not your thoughts.

So?

What evidence is there for any of these things absent a body.

At this point you will become aware that the body, feelings and thoughts do not belong to anyone and you will become aware of the whole process by which the experience of personal identity is constructed by the mind. It's not you.

they seem to be bounded by a body , what evidence is to the contrary?

There is the experience of identification with these things and, indeed, to carry out any outgoing activity such as this dialogue, I am making use of my sense of personal selfhood. But it is not a final truth.

Nick

there is no truth.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, I might wish to know the length of this table perhaps. I could measure it. Then, just to confirm, I could ask other people, perhaps with different measuring devices to measure it. If they come up with the same result, at some point I would be happy to take the measurement as proven.

Nick

Google 'radical behaviorism', I am more of a methdologist.

 

[John Freestone]

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.

Sorry, Joe, but I think it is. I think it is how we make progress from one paradigm to another. The anomalies in the movements of heavenly bodies had such a 'lack of absolute answers from science', since the absolute answers from science were that the world was in the middle of everything with everything else going round in perfect circular orbits. That problem was known for a long time before someone used it as an 'excuse to make things up and present his idle imaginings as a valid alternative to the generally accepted view about reality'.

I - and a great deal of other people - perceive consciousness to be a self-evident problem for the current scientific paradigm, hence the request that people recognise the assumptions underlying it, and the need to think about alternatives.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

Martu, what you did is to change one label for another. But this doesn't explain anything. its like saying that:

"god is the sum total of all processes in the universe, the subroutine that handles matter, the subroutine that handles thought, the subroutine that handles gravity etc when taken as a whole is god".

Yes, it might sound appealing, but I haven't explain anything.

 

[martu]

Yes. I'm glad you concede that point, although it was directed specifically at PixyMisa.

I'm sorry you don't understand - science works by taking ideas based on observations and testing them. Science seems to be a very good tool for finding out how things work, without we wouldn't be communicating.

So what observation has led you to think that the brain receives a signal from somehwere?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

there is no truth.

Ahh the voice of reason hiya David.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Boys and Girls... you are going to fast! I discovered this thread last night and I'm trying to read it all.. but as soon as I read some posts whole new pages are arriving!

Nice thread.

 

[martu]

Martu, what you did is to change one label for another. But this doesn't explain anything. its like saying that:

"god is the sum total of all processes in the universe, the subroutine that handles matter, the subroutine that handles thought, the subroutine that handles gravity etc when taken as a whole is god".

Yes, it might sound appealing, but I haven't explain anything.

No it isn't.

What isn't explained by my sentence?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Science has so far failed to make sense of 'subjectivity' because it isn't properly speaking a scientific problem. It is a thought problem, so belongs to philosophy of mind.

Partially agree, but I would like to comment that "science" is a collection of methodologies, not a body of beliefs. Secondly, "subjectivity" is not even well defined, how can we apply the scientific method to something we can't define?

There are strong correlates between specifics aspects of what we call consciousness and the brain. Things are going good, but are far from completed.

Another way to put it is that we can't make sense of "subjectivity" because it is not something you can see "from the outside" (to put it in every day terms). But this one is difficult to tackle by our materialists friends.

 

[John Freestone]

I'm sorry you don't understand - science works by taking ideas based on observations and testing them. Science seems to be a very good tool for finding out how things work, without we wouldn't be communicating.

So what observation has led you to think that the brain receives a signal from somehwere?

None, particularly. I put that as an example of an alternative explanation of consciousness in response to the statement "It is caused by the brain". I do not particularly favour the theory. Rather I was trying to get PM to recognise the possibility that his/her statement was an assumption, not a fact. I think I probably succeeded, but it's hard to tell. I have already supported your first paragraph several times. Hurray for science!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No it isn't.

What isn't explained by my sentence?

Lets see:

"Horse Power is the sum total of all engine processes, the subroutine that handles gas, the subroutine that handles air, the subroutine that handles ignition etc when taken as a whole is Horse Power."

"Computation is the sum total of all computer processes, the subroutine that handles bits, the subroutine that handles heath, the subroutine that handles sums etc when taken as a whole is computation."

I hope it is clear now

 

[John Freestone]

Hi Bodhi Dharma Zen, yeah the thread seems to keep reincarnating and I post on one page and find it's moved on another page! I agree that

...(snip)... "science" is a collection of methodologies, not a body of beliefs.

but I've been arguing that it depends on beliefs, which has upset those who seem to believe that it is just observing stuff that's real and comparing notes with other people to make sure, coz some of it's a bit confusing, like.

Secondly, "subjectivity" is not even well defined, how can we apply the scientific method to something we can't define?

Thank you. Not only that, but 'subject' (or the sense of being conscious) seems almost of a different flavour or dimension from 'object' (that which is observed).

There are strong correlates between specifics aspects of what we call consciousness and the brain. Things are going good, but are far from completed.

Another way to put it is that we can't make sense of "subjectivity" because it is not something you can see "from the outside" (to put it in every day terms). But this one is difficult to tackle by our materialists friends.

Yes. They keep trying to see it from the outside in order to make it a byproduct of matter, because they have matter as fundamental. However, I don't think their theories cross the divide and explain how consciousness (so different from matter) arises from utterly unconscious matter.

I find Peter Russell's lecture rather interesting, and it makes more sense to me than the materialist explanations. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799171063626430789

 

[John Freestone]

whhooopps

 

[Nick227]

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.

Hi Lupus,

Well, I'm not criticising objective science. I'm saying that, based on my own experiences, the mind experiences non-dual reality a priori, and then constructs objective egoic awareness through filtering. Admittedly this is hard to substantiate but it does, I submit, make rational sense. It's also pretty much in line with Metzinger when he speaks of the way personal self-hood cranks itself up with waking.

As to warranting anyone making claims or whatever, I don't really worry about these things so much. Better to go ahead and make claims and potentially get something from it, I think. Better than just keeping it all inside. If you experience non-duality you will be aware that it's all just a bunch of identified thought patterns anyway, I don't think one has to be too worried about these things. Thoughts here, thoughts there, rationalisations and beliefs - who are they really happening to anyway?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

What differentiates what you claim being true from it being nothing more than the product of your overactive imagination?

If you take a look inside you will see it is true. If you cannot substantiate the notion that the thoughts currently passing through your head are "yours" - that they have possession - then what does this mean? Look, examine, cogitate, investigate yourself. You can also simply stick with the thinking that pours out in reaction to what I've written. It's up to you.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

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.

So you have zero to add to the discussion. Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[JoeEllison]

If you take a look inside you will see it is true. If you cannot substantiate the notion that the thoughts currently passing through your head are "yours" - that they have possession - then what does this mean? Look, examine, cogitate, investigate yourself. You can also simply stick with the thinking that pours out in reaction to what I've written. It's up to you.

Nick

So, your answer is that NOTHING differentiates your claims from being imaginary or delusional. Can you not understand why your position is rejected as both immature and frankly silly?

 

[Nick227]

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.

For sure these things arise as a result of the body's interactions with the world around it. But why is there identification associated with them? Why does your mind consider these things "my thoughts," "my sensations," etc, and not "David's thoughts," "David's sensations?" The word "David" performs the labelling function that you're writing about.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

None, particularly. I put that as an example of an alternative explanation of consciousness in response to the statement "It is caused by the brain". I do not particularly favour the theory. Rather I was trying to get PM to recognise the possibility that his/her statement was an assumption, not a fact. I think I probably succeeded, but it's hard to tell. I have already supported your first paragraph several times. Hurray for science!

I think everyone has stated pretty clearly that science is based on assumptions. The problem is that not all assumptions are equally valid or useful. The assumptions of science/materialism are hugely successful. The assumptions of non-materialist worldviews are complete failures in every case.