• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Subjectivity and Science

I can't even tell woo from a drug trip... or one from another... Freestone is sounding very Interesting Ianish...
Way back in the dawn of time, I had a rather lengthy debate here with a character by the name of Undercover Elephant, who informed me at one point that I needed to take mind-altering drugs to understand his argument.

I declined.
 
Last edited:
Way back in the dawn of time, I had a rather lengthy debate here with a character by the name of Undercover Elephant, who informed me at one point that I needed to take mind-altering drugs to understand his argument.

I declined.

Oh I remember him... he used "justgeoff" too and was "into" synchronicity.

They come here pretending to want a conversation, but after awhile the same woo semantics are drawn out. Hi thread start ration to posts... new person pretending to have expertise in a subject not in evidence... no curiosity about new developments or others' areas of expertise... they don't want the facts or the truth... they just want to convince themselves science doesn't have it. It's an ego-propping thing. They never really say what it is they belief--what it is they are protecting, because they know it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny... instead they do verbal jujitsu on real and solid information with their blinders on and convince themselves that they are better than everyone else.

They are the ones not making sense and the rest of us wonder if it's us while they never imagine it's them. I believe "sir philip" is a former drug addict as well... and from his posts it appears he did not go unscathed by his experiences.

I have no interest in finding out what my brain would do on psychedelics. And even if I felt the "inner knowingness" the woo imagine they have... I'd know to attribute it to brain states and not whatever my brain happened to infer while under the influence. They believe in magic-- so their eperiences are translated through that woo filter.
 
Last edited:
I feel very hurt. Why is it necessary to slag people off like this just because you perceive them having a different opinion from you? Is it all the years thinking of yourself as a machine that makes you so bad mannered?

If anyone appears to think they know everything and have nothing to learn, it seems to be you, and your sniping suggests that underneath that ill-mannered arrogance you aren't quite as confident as you make out. The last god knows how many posts between you and Joe seem to be designed to belittle and insult me, either that or you are utterly insensitive.

Still, I guess you've been through the routine before. If someone challenges your beliefs too much, you just call their sanity into question until they feel so bad they have to leave and you can celebrate another victory for rationalism. Oh well done. You clever things.
 
There are people here who really take the time to give carefully crafted information to people in direct response to their own queries. The information is information that even the smartest human could not know 50 years ago... it's information that even the wealthiest in generations past could not purchase. It comes to them directly from all over the world... often with links on technology that no one could have imagined.

I can't tell you how many times I feel so fortunate to read such brilliant people who say things in ways that I aspire to...

But the woo ignore it for their delusions.
They treat the bringers of truth as enemies as they worship the imaginary.

That's what faith does to people.

That is sad.
 
I feel very hurt. Why is it necessary to slag people off like this just because you perceive them having a different opinion from you? Is it all the years thinking of yourself as a machine that makes you so bad mannered?

If anyone appears to think they know everything and have nothing to learn, it seems to be you, and your sniping suggests that underneath that ill-mannered arrogance you aren't quite as confident as you make out. The last god knows how many posts between you and Joe seem to be designed to belittle and insult me, either that or you are utterly insensitive.

Still, I guess you've been through the routine before. If someone challenges your beliefs too much, you just call their sanity into question until they feel so bad they have to leave and you can celebrate another victory for rationalism. Oh well done. You clever things.
What's really sad is that you ignore the legitimate criticism pointed your way, and instead invent a false rationalization, out of your imagination and nothing else. We gave you real reasons why we reject your viewpoint, and you completely ignored them. Instead, you present a completely wrong(and seemingly dishonest) excuse, that we just can't stand differing opinions.

It is also pretty awesome how you resort to insult when people reject your views. "Awesome" meaning "sad," of course.
 
There are people here who really take the time to give carefully crafted information to people in direct response to their own queries. The information is information that even the smartest human could not know 50 years ago... it's information that even the wealthiest in generations past could not purchase. It comes to them directly from all over the world... often with links on technology that no one could have imagined.

I can't tell you how many times I feel so fortunate to read such brilliant people who say things in ways that I aspire to...

But the woo ignore it for their delusions.
They treat the bringers of truth as enemies as they worship the imaginary.

That's what faith does to people.

That is sad.
You know what the really bad thing is? We're having this conversation on the Internet, which gives us access to pretty much the entire expanse of human knowledge. There's no excuse for ignorance anymore: we can find out about almost anything, almost instantly, if we are only willing to look for it, and invest the required effort and time to understand it.

We don't have to create arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. We don't have to engineer each piece of gear individually, in order to get at research tools. We don't have to go back thousands of years, and research every aspect of the world for ourselves. We can build upon the knowledge of others, and save ourselves lifetimes of work.

The really sad thing is that there are people who will ignore everything we've learned, and pretend that they have some brilliant and original idea that no one has ever thought of before. The truth is that we've already though of their ideas, and rejected them as being useless and/or wrong. The truth is that their insistence that they have something new to offer is an insult to everyone who has bothered to put in the work to learn things about science and philosophy.

It is sad, and ugly, and it sometimes really does make me angry... it is such a goddamned waste!
 
I feel very hurt. Why is it necessary to slag people off like this just because you perceive them having a different opinion from you? Is it all the years thinking of yourself as a machine that makes you so bad mannered?

You feel hurt? What about people who actually know stuff who took the time answer your questions sincerely while you ignored them? Who, other than you, finds me more "bad mannered" than you? Did I even call you anything as negative as "bad mannered"? You've hurled a plethora of epithets and, in the same post, told us what a great and conscientious guy you are! (Oh, and yes, I've read my sig... have you?) BTW, I think it's bad mannered to come to a skeptics forum "pretending" to be a skeptic but really wanting to push your woo.

If anyone appears to think they know everything and have nothing to learn, it seems to be you, and your sniping suggests that underneath that ill-mannered arrogance you aren't quite as confident as you make out. The last god knows how many posts between you and Joe seem to be designed to belittle and insult me, either that or you are utterly insensitive.
Evidence? Appearances can be deceiving. I find the evidence of this thread indicates that the insults you give me are more fitting of yourself. You might ask whether it's insensitive to come to a forum as a know-it-all and expect to have your opinion respected without even having read or asked anyone else of their opinion! Don't confuse not believing my not believing in your "divine truths" with my thinking I know everything. I never claimed as much; that's your strawman.

Still, I guess you've been through the routine before. If someone challenges your beliefs too much, you just call their sanity into question until they feel so bad they have to leave and you can celebrate another victory for rationalism. Oh well done. You clever things.
What beliefs do you imagine you've challenged? I'm not afraid of having beliefs challenged. I don't "believe in" invisible forms of consciousness. I don't think I have many beliefs, but if you hear one, feel free to challenge it and bring your evidence to the table for your counterclaim. Skepticism is pretty much about not believing in things until enough evidence has accumulated to warrant consideration. I am not interested in beliefs. I am interested in facts-- what is true?-- I don't "believe in" divine truths... just plain old regular truths-- facts that are the same for everyone. I'm not the one claiming to have divine truths; you are. That makes YOU the arrogant one. I WANT my erroneous beliefs challenged by intelligent honest people with evidence. Got any? I'd rather not know something than to believe things that aren't true.

And, I don't care rather you leave or stay. Usually when your kind stays it's just to get the last word on whatever they came here to sell. But occasionally one will actually be interested in skepticism and science and how it works and learn the various people you can go to for really great information on various subjects. You can learn whether your ideas have merit. But not as long as you are so smarmy and, well, like every other woo that posts here. How do you see your "beliefs" in dualism as different than conspiracy theorist beliefs? I can point to all the woos here, and you can tell me why we should respect you more than them... and why we should respect you more than you respect us. Why do you assume you have something to teach and nothing to learn without even finding out what any of us knows and how?? Would anything change your mind. Evidence is usually all that is needed to change a skeptics mind. Oh, and honesty and humility go a long way too.

So, your feelings are hurt. Other people have feelings too. You seemed to have been ignoring that while preaching and then, like all woo, you pull out the "I'm offended" card when it comes back. Not a great introduction to a group you're presumably wanting to be around, eh?

Thicken the skin. Not everyone sees you as diplomatic or as kind or as smart as you see yourself. Nor does everyone see Joe and I as nasty as you imagine us. Evolve and then join the conversation. Just quit thinking you are the one who has something to teach. Trust us, we'll discover it, if that is so.

What do you suggest people do when woos invade their forum and you cannot talk to them? What is wrong with talking about them? I don't think your method of "educating" us is doing us or yourself any favor. Why not turn lemons into lemonade?

If you want people to believe whatever magic you are selling, you ought to go try a woo forum where they respect whatever woo you are into. When you believe in things that are invisible and immeasurable and indistinguishable from a delusion, the best thing to do is treat it as a delusion, don't you think? Whether it's demons or thetans or ghosts or immortal souls. How else do you imagine we should be. How do you treat people who believe in demon possession? Do you stroke their delusions? What do you do when they have to make you into the bad guy rather lest their delusion shatter?

ETA... I just re-read... and it appears you've taken comments personally that I was not directing at you but rather at someone else in your corner of the discussion. But since you are taking it personally feel free to take this post personally as well. If I'm wrong, I will apologize. I think the fact that I hit a nerve makes me think I"m right. But time will tell, eh? Oh, and do let me know how I've gotten your beliefs wrong. You are against materialism, but you haven't really said what your alternative view is-- but that is something all woo does.
 
Last edited:
Late to the thread and so many things in the OP are invalid premises. So just a quick couple comments and I'll get back to the thread when I have time to catch up.

Science does not reject the subjective experience. Though that is a common misconception when we say anecdotal evidence is not worth much.

Actually, anecdotal evidence is very important in medical science and some of the social sciences. I care if you perceive more or less pain, for example. The difference is collecting the anecdotal evidence systematically and using controls. That is how one uses subjective evidence in a meaningful way.

The second incorrect underlying premise is that science does not address consciousness. I suggest anyone under that misconception take the time to update their knowledge base on the current research in consciousness science. It is a fascinating subject and more than a few scientists are very interested in gaining a better understanding of it. It is very easy to find the research with a simple Google search.

I'll catch up on the rest of the thread conversation in a day or so.
 
Last edited:
Yes... they could share and further real and useful knowledge if they weren't frittering their time away away on ego-building delusions...

aaack... I'm having Undercover Elephant flashbacks, and I've never taken a hallucinogen.
 
Last edited:
Yes... they could share and further real and useful knowledge if they weren't frittering their time away away on ego-building delusions...

aaack... I'm having Undercover Elephant flashbacks, and I've never taken a hallucinogen.
Not to worry. Hallucinogens are overrated. Maybe fun for a night, but certainly no magical mystery revelations. ;)
 
Not to worry. Hallucinogens are overrated. Maybe fun for a night, but certainly no magical mystery revelations. ;)

And, unfortunately, tons of brain damage... which is the opposite of "consciousness expanding" in my opinion. :rolleyes:
 
I am completely open to understanding what material science says about consciousness, and I am always completely open to recognising that it explains it. I struggle to do so. I really turn over what I hear and read in my mind and worry that it's just too difficult for my little brain - sometimes. Mostly I get it, and it doesn't satisfy me. It doesn't square with my understanding of my subjective consciousness of being. Your machine is not conscious and you know it. You suggest that that is just a matter of complexity. I disagree. I don't think consciousness is some 'reflection' process of unconscious synapses, ever.

John- You and I would here agree to disagree with PixyMisa, but I suspect for very different reasons.

Pixy believes thought simply IS information processing.
You seem to believe it simply isn't.(But you don't clarify what it is).
I believe it is a particular kind of information processing, done only by a very old biological process, vaguely known as "life", which has been operating uninterrupted for several billion years.
I feel Pixy's machine (or the true AIs of which his is a deliberately simplistic exemplar) will eventually do something analogous to, but different from thought.
But my supposition is only that; a belief, a suspicion. I have no data whatever to support it, except the fact Pixy already mentioned- wherever we find thought, we also find a brain, which is why Pixy and I don't bore each other to death having a pointless argument. Eventually the data will prove one of us wrong. He remains optimistic. I think he is (and it's a rare event) wrong.
His assumption is that thought is not hardware substrate dependant- just as some software can run on any machine. If that is correct, his arguments hold. If not, then not.
I think thought is entirely a product of biology and so take a narrower and more hardline view.
One of us may be right, or neither. But not both.

But we don't yet know which.

Can you clarify where your views fit on these terms as I find it hard to see exactly what point you are getting at generally.
 
Last edited:
Nick227 said:
Non-duality IS. That's it. Viewed analytically it's a baseline state. It's not "another brain state." It's awareness of that in which all brain states arise. Thoughts arise as your conditioned belief patterns interact with sensorily experienced reality. Emotions also. The thing is to go into it. This is what I've learned. Whilst identification exists they will always appear to be "your thoughts" and "your feelings." When you go into them deep enough, when you allow and welcome the identification, then change occurs. This is the mechanism life uses to create growth - identification with thought and feeling. When it's finished growing you, the identification drops off and life is more peaceful. It's easier to make friends.

And yet everything seems to happen in the brain. It doesn’t really matter if you call it a ‘baseline state’ or just ‘another brain state’; the experience of non-duality could be just another experience without the sense on identification. You decide what meaning you apply to it in retrospect, when the experience of self is there again. When you say that “it’s awareness of that in which all brain states arise”, then that’s just one interpretation that’s meaningful for you. There are also other people who seem to have a multitude of selfs. We have also people who are rendered incapable of functioning in this society because they have lost any experience of self. I have nothing against you calling it a “baseline state,” I just don’t feel it necessary to create such an arbitrary hierarchy myself. You are only describing your self-therapy here.
 
And yet everything seems to happen in the brain. It doesn’t really matter if you call it a ‘baseline state’ or just ‘another brain state’; the experience of non-duality could be just another experience without the sense on identification. You decide what meaning you apply to it in retrospect, when the experience of self is there again. When you say that “it’s awareness of that in which all brain states arise”, then that’s just one interpretation that’s meaningful for you. There are also other people who seem to have a multitude of selfs. We have also people who are rendered incapable of functioning in this society because they have lost any experience of self. I have nothing against you calling it a “baseline state,” I just don’t feel it necessary to create such an arbitrary hierarchy myself. You are only describing your self-therapy here.

I agree. I merely propose the hierachy as it does offer an objective viewpoint from which to articulate a relationship. Of course all these things are simply arising.

The mind seeks processes and relationships because it dwells in the state of believing it has a personal identity. Thus it constructs objectivity because this allows the formulation of process, and processes reinforce the illusory sense of selfhood.

Of course all this is merely another formulation!

Nick
 
BTW, neurologists, etc. don't have a problem with the materialistic world view... it tends to be people who derive comfort from some other alternative (be it reincarnation or heavenly bliss) that find the "problem" "hard". Neuroscience has accepted it... we are eager to find out more and going forward learning all we can about the brain and how it generates consciousness. Looking for "souls" turned out to be a failure. We're on the right track finally.

Well, neuroscientists may not have a problem with materialism but they are a long way from understanding awareness itself. Thus they are more in the mindset of believing that such a thing is possible and allowing this to drive them into continuing their studies, and this is good. Personally I think they are driven by a primarily unconscious urge. There is identification with the urge and so their minds believe that if they just keep studying then they will be able to finally reinforce completely their unconscious belief in personal selfhood.

Personally I like materialism as it does offer the fastest route to becoming aware that limited selfhood is illusory. It's a prison mentality. But then all mentalities are prison mentalities, and so I figure it's best to choose the one that has the tightest walls. That way, if you really look, you can see that actually you are not in prison.

Nick
 
And, unfortunately, tons of brain damage... which is the opposite of "consciousness expanding" in my opinion. :rolleyes:

Care to cite that claim, Joe?

These days scientists are back studying psilocybin, LSD, and mdma, with regard to bringing them to the market to treat psychiatric ailments.

Nick
 

Back
Top Bottom