Subjectivity and Science

[lupus_in_fabula]

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.

Just to be clear: What do you mean by “mind”? How does it differ from “brain”?

 

[Nick227]

Just to be clear: What do you mean by “mind”? How does it differ from “brain”?

Hi Lupus,

Using the word "mind" I'm referring to the process of the brain, also not limiting it necessarily to the physical organ, for those who don't like the materialist perspective.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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?

Hi John,

It's just a fear reaction, basically. Identified with one belief pattern, opposing beliefs seem threatening. There is such a core of belief that the viewpoint is "mine, mine, mine" that the emotional system of the individual is aroused to deal with the seeming threat. This is does through pre-learned means of doing so, which on this list is usually to ridicule the opposing person or belief. People who ridicule invariably fear ridicule themselves.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

Hi John,

It's just a fear reaction, basically. Identified with one belief pattern, opposing beliefs seem threatening. There is such a core of belief that the viewpoint is "mine, mine, mine" that the emotional system of the individual is aroused to deal with the seeming threat. This is does through pre-learned means of doing so, which on this list is usually to ridicule the opposing person or belief. People who ridicule invariably fear ridicule themselves.

Nick

Here's that dishonest rationalization again. You cannot accept any of the reasons given over pages and pages of thread. Instead, you lie to yourself, and pretend that we reject unsubstantiated nonsense out of fear, instead of because it is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Since you're clearly engaged in an act of self-deception here, how can you be taken seriously? You can't even be honest with yourself, why would be believe you to be honest with us?

 

[articulett]

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

Actually it's more ayahuasca and ibogaine. Frequent LSD use and MDMA are associated with brain damage.

 

[articulett]

Aaack... nick is another "self appointed" expert implying that science is closed minded to alternative viewpoints for not considering his viewpoint which he has provided no evidence for or understanding of, but,hotdamn, it makes him feel like a messiah!

So, Nick, tell us why you think we should take you more seriously than Tom Cruise in his Scientology vid all over the web. What more do you have to offer than him. He proposes that Scientologists are the experts on peoples' minds. Why should we think you are? Are you a Scientologist? You use words to imply that you think of yourself as a "savior" like him and, also like him, you seem to think you know more science than the scientists.

Interesting.

 

[JoeEllison]

Aaack... nick is another "self appointed" expert implying that science is closed minded to alternative viewpoints for not considering his viewpoint which he has provided no evidence for or understanding of, but,hotdamn, it makes him feel like a messiah!

So, Nick, tell us why you think we should take you more seriously than Tom Cruise in his Scientology vid all over the web. What more do you have to offer than him. He proposes that Scientologists are the experts on peoples' minds. Why should we think you are? Are you a Scientologist? You use words to imply that you think of yourself as a "savior" like him and, also like him, you seem to think you know more science than the scientists.

Interesting.

You know what I'd like? I'd like for one of these "prophets" to tell me what exactly I'm supposed to be afraid of. I keep asking over and over again for some practical effect of their woo being true... and all I get is silence, and sometimes some of that moronic "open your mind" garbage.

Can I get a little "if X is true, then the result is Y" sort of explanation? Please? If Nick is right, then the practical change in my life will be what, exactly?

 

[Nick227]

Here's that dishonest rationalization again. You cannot accept any of the reasons given over pages and pages of thread. Instead, you lie to yourself, and pretend that we reject unsubstantiated nonsense out of fear, instead of because it is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Since you're clearly engaged in an act of self-deception here, how can you be taken seriously? You can't even be honest with yourself, why would be believe you to be honest with us?

Well, you've yet to come up with any hard evidence for personal identity.

I haven't followed all of the posts in this thread, but what I've seen from yourself and Pixy is little more than amusing nonsense. When faced with the fact that it cannot be substantiated by hard science, Pixy proceeds to proclaim that soft science is easily good enough, despite this being a field he's merrily lambasted in the past. He must have used the phrase "There's no such thing as subjective science!" to me 10 times a couple of months back! Now suddenly, it's bloody great. The whole thing is a joke.

If you're a materialist then explain to me how and why a thinking and experiencing machine called The Brain uses the term "I."

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Actually it's more ayahuasca and ibogaine. Frequent LSD use and MDMA are associated with brain damage.

I'm sure you'll agree that "frequent use...associated with" is a lot different from "tons of brain damage."

Are you saying above that ibogaine and ayahuasca cause tons of brain damage? If so some citations would be nice. (Molliver's on Purkinje cells has now been discounted, btw)

eta, it strikes me that maybe you're trying to say that ibogaine and ayahuasca are being studied and the others not. As far as I'm aware there's no ongoing clinical studies for either of these. There is research going on for lsd, mdma and psilocybin, so I read in last months SciAm mind magazine.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Aaack... nick is another "self appointed" expert implying that science is closed minded to alternative viewpoints for not considering his viewpoint which he has provided no evidence for or understanding of, but,hotdamn, it makes him feel like a messiah!

I'm quite fond of science and materialism actually. It would be a funny old world without them.

So, Nick, tell us why you think we should take you more seriously than Tom Cruise in his Scientology vid all over the web. What more do you have to offer than him. He proposes that Scientologists are the experts on peoples' minds. Why should we think you are? Are you a Scientologist? You use words to imply that you think of yourself as a "savior" like him and, also like him, you seem to think you know more science than the scientists. .

Someone told me I looked like Tom Cruise once, but I not sure if this really is a compliment. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply pointing out that there is no hard evidence for personal identity, and exploring a little of the ramifications of this. I'm not a scientologist. Too many saunas!

Nick

 

[articulett]

Objective truths exist whether one is personally experiencing them or not.

Events happened (objective)... nothing can change that. Each person has a subjective memory of the event (subjective).

It's pretty simple--but not for people who don't want to understand.

Science goes with the best explanation for the observed. So far, it's materialism. All other explanations so far are as viable as no explanation at all and no evidence seems to be coming in any direction. We can't wait around for invisible evidence to manifest--we've got a lot to learn, and materialism gives us those tools. You have not proposed any alternate... just implied that you had an "inner knowingness" about one while dodging and weaving the REAL "hard question".

You insult materialism and materialists while not offering anything else in return. How is that different than Tom Cruise? How is that different than those you find wooish? I think it's obvious that you are building up your special truth in your head, while not offering it on the table for examination as science always does. If the evidence survives the pummmeling--it looks like you got a new piece to add to the puzzle. Your hypothesis isn't falsifiable... just so long as materialism doesn't make complete sense to you, you can nurture both it and your ego. Whatever you alternative hypothesis might be, we see no more reason to accept it than to accept the implied hypothesis of Tom Cruise.

 

[Nick227]

You insult materialism and materialists while not offering anything else in return. How is that different than Tom Cruise? How is that different than those you find wooish? I think it's obvious that you are building up your special truth in your head, while not offering it on the table for examination as science always does. If the evidence survives the pummmeling--it looks like you got a new piece to add to the puzzle. Your hypothesis isn't falsifiable... just so long as materialism doesn't make complete sense to you, you can nurture both it and your ego. Whatever you alternative hypothesis might be, we see no more reason to accept it than to accept the implied hypothesis of Tom Cruise.

I'm not insulting materialism. I like materialism. What precisely does Tom Cruise have to do with anything? It never ceases to amaze me just how much lunacy materialists will randomly spew out when faced with the reality that the belief system of their veneration can't actually even give hard evidence for the most basic concept in existence - "I."

Nick

 

[articulett]

I'm not insulting materialism. I like materialism. What precisely does Tom Cruise have to do with anything? It never ceases to amaze me just how much lunacy materialists will randomly spew out when faced with the reality that the belief system of their veneration can't actually even give hard evidence for the most basic concept in existence - "I."

Nick

Because we all know there is no evidence that you will accept for whatever you mean by the concept "I". We are not making a claim... we are going with the best explanation of the observed facts, because although there's always suggestions of other vague explanations... like you, believers in such have offered nothing useful or testable or even comprehensible.

Perhaps the lunatic materialists are just little smarter than you-- better at analogies. I was very specific as to how you remind me of him-- you both have implied that you have "divine truths" and reveal a sort of "Messiah Complex" (e.g. "I'm here to save you") without really SAYING anything. In your head you are communicating some wisdom like he seems to think he is. That's what we call "subjective".

In reality, those of us on the outside are hearing gibberish. We understand that you feel that there is something beyond materialism or better than materialism as an explanation for "I" (or whatever it is you are mumbo jumboing), but we have no more reason to think you have special knowledge than we do to think Tom Cruise is.

Does anyone else not understand the analogy?

 

[Nick227]

Because we all know there is no evidence that you will accept for whatever you mean by the concept "I". We are not making a claim... we are going with the best explanation of the observed facts, because although there's always suggestions of other vague explanations... like you, believers in such have offered nothing useful or testable or even comprehensible.

Perhaps the lunatic materialists are just little smarter than you-- better at analogies. I was very specific as to how you remind me of him-- you both have implied that you have "divine truths" and reveal a sort of "Messiah Complex" (e.g. "I'm here to save you") without really SAYING anything. In your head you are communicating some wisdom like he seems to think he is. That's what we call "subjective".

In reality, those of us on the outside are hearing gibberish. We understand that you feel that there is something beyond materialism or better than materialism as an explanation for "I" (or whatever it is you are mumbo jumboing), but we have no more reason to think you have special knowledge than we do to think Tom Cruise is.

Does anyone else not understand the analogy?

Well I don't understand it. Are you sure you're not getting me confused with someone else? I've never been involved with scientology and I don't know anything about whatever vid Tom Cruise is showing on the net. As for "divine," I've barely used the word "god."

What I am saying is....there's no hard evidence for the concept "I." It is assumed. When you talk about materialism, or objectivity, as giving the best we know about the world, you overlook that the most basic concept that it is based on is assumed. It cannot be hard proven. The tower of materialism is founded upon an unexamined assumption.

This is what I'm saying. If you don't believe me....then look for yourself.

Nick

 

[Beth]

Hi Lupus,

Using the word "mind" I'm referring to the process of the brain, also not limiting it necessarily to the physical organ, for those who don't like the materialist perspective.

Nick

I haven't read this entire thread, so excuse me if this has been gone over before. I just want to clarify your definition of mind by asking rather than searching through 400 posts.

Is what you are calling 'mind' not the physical brain itself, but what might be described as the patterns of neural activity that stops when a person dies or the difference between a living brain and a dead one, also referred to as person's spirit, soul, or invididual ego?

Thank you.

Beth

eta: If I am understanding you correctly, 'mind' may or may not include some hypothesized activity outside of the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum we normally term 'reality'?

 

[Stout]

Articulette...I understand your analogy just fine.

One thing I don't understand though is all this hoopla over the idea of "I" or "mine" I know my thoughts are mine simply because nobody else, anywhere in the world is staring at what I'm staring at right now, and wondering where it came from. I know this to be true, because what I'm staring at just manifested itself ( yikes...did I just say that ? ) in the past few minutes and there's no one around, besides me, to know it's here.

Also, I know my thoughts are my own, because when my wife asks me "What are you thinking? " and I make up an answer that doesn't involve another woman, she believes me.

Beth, I posed the same question back in post #249, and I'm still awaiting an answer. I strongly suspect it will be "yes" this is all about belief in the soul.

 

[JoeEllison]

Objective truths exist whether one is personally experiencing them or not.

Events happened (objective)... nothing can change that. Each person has a subjective memory of the event (subjective).

It's pretty simple--but not for people who don't want to understand.

Science goes with the best explanation for the observed. So far, it's materialism. All other explanations so far are as viable as no explanation at all and no evidence seems to be coming in any direction. We can't wait around for invisible evidence to manifest--we've got a lot to learn, and materialism gives us those tools. You have not proposed any alternate... just implied that you had an "inner knowingness" about one while dodging and weaving the REAL "hard question".

You insult materialism and materialists while not offering anything else in return. How is that different than Tom Cruise? How is that different than those you find wooish? I think it's obvious that you are building up your special truth in your head, while not offering it on the table for examination as science always does. If the evidence survives the pummmeling--it looks like you got a new piece to add to the puzzle. Your hypothesis isn't falsifiable... just so long as materialism doesn't make complete sense to you, you can nurture both it and your ego. Whatever you alternative hypothesis might be, we see no more reason to accept it than to accept the implied hypothesis of Tom Cruise.

What's really interesting is that this thread is up to however many pages, and Nick is still dishonestly claiming that no one has presented anything to him, when the truth is the exact opposite. The insulting part is that these sorts of intellectually lazy and dishonest people somehow also nurture the delusion that they are actually smarter and better than everyone else.

 

[JoeEllison]

Articulette...I understand your analogy just fine.

One thing I don't understand though is all this hoopla over the idea of "I" or "mine" I know my thoughts are mine simply because nobody else, anywhere in the world is staring at what I'm staring at right now, and wondering where it came from. I know this to be true, because what I'm staring at just manifested itself ( yikes...did I just say that ? ) in the past few minutes and there's no one around, besides me, to know it's here.

Also, I know my thoughts are my own, because when my wife asks me "What are you thinking? " and I make up an answer that doesn't involve another woman, she believes me.

And, if for some reason, you're somehow not really you, how can you know the difference? If something is absolutely indistinguishable from what it appears to be, what does it matter? That's one of the places where people who actually think, instead of just imagining, come up against the fact that non-materialist viewpoints are, at least so far, completely and utterly useless.

 

[Beth]

By questioning the nature of consciousness, are we really questioning the existence of the soul ? Is there a fear that science may eventually learn enough to reduce the idea of belief to biochemistry? That belief might somehow end up termed "treatable" ?

Just thinking out loud here, but if ethnogens can be used in ritual to bring the practitioner "closer to God" and invoke spiritual experiences, why couldn't the opposite chemistry be used to "take one further away from God", or suppress belief in the soul ?

An interesting aspect of it I hadn't considered before. But why on earth do you think that it would be the non-believers curing belief and not the other way round?

 

[Stout]

Thanks Joe...I've been reading on this topic since this thread started. I've only been reading this one, and the New Age Religions Don't make You Happy...for the past week or so and the confusion both those threads generated led me to fear for my sanity at times.

So if I discard the "importance" of the non materialist view of consciousness except to acknowledge that it has some bearing on the emotional well being and outlook of non materialists.. Then I'm left wondering what the attack on science is all about.

As far as I can tell "belief" is mad at science because science says belief is irrelevant in the "real world" and is counterattacking with the idea that since science is unable to provide a definition of just what thought actually is then science must also be inadequate when it tries to explain other, specific claims made by belief.

Beth...it could indeed be the other way around. I was thinking along the lines of geneticists discovering a gene, or genes that code for belief. Who knows, science just may prove that skeptics are mutants, or producing some substance that suppresses a trait that should be expressed.