Subjectivity and Science

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ya think? I sure haven't seen that here.

Perhaps I should restate -- there are many who simply don't care 'bout the distinction. Paul is one. Robin identifies as a materialist but is not so dogmatic as some of you guys seem to imply.

The truly laughable part seen here is the belief that science requires the choice of physicalism/materialism.

Who says that? Physicalism, idealism, what difference does it make? Science is just science. It examines the way the game is played whatever the underlying playing material. I know of a few folks here who do not think that science requires materialism.

 

[Nick227]

I think I remember Ramachandran mentioning something about the evolution of the self-concept (although in a somewhat speculative manner). Something like: since being able to function in a group was of evolutionary advantage, it makes sense than an ability to evaluate other group members rudimentary behaviour (facial expression, tone of “voice” or grump etc.) also had an evolutionary advantage. In conjunction with that, it also makes sense that it could have been an evolutionary advantage to assess one’s own position in the group. In this “social soup” the notion of self arose as a social advantage and a tool for survival.

What I don’t really understand either, is why materialism (a monist ontology) should be under threat from contemplation of the notion of selfhood.

It isn't! Materialism is best because it has the most possibility to show you your limitations. All philosophies, all beliefs are just arising through the mechanism of identification, so you might as well choose the one that can rein you in.

Yes, I've read the neuroscientists are currently somewhere around the amygdala, looking at how it can differentiate person from person. Generally, I think body image and related phenomena are tracked to the somatosensory cortex. Someone wrote a book recently about how empathy arises as amygdalic function diffuses. I read it's popular because empathy and its occasional end product self-sacrifice are a major hassle for the neurobiologists.

Personally, I figure the "I" is an artifact of libidinal drive, the need for emotions to be truly felt and thoughts acted upon. When you work with people who are repressing a lot of feeling, you have to crank them up so they can really allow themselves to feel. You have to restrict their sleep or something, you need to drive them a bit crazy so they can start to let go. They need to fully identify with feelings. When they've done that they can let go of the identification. The thoughts arise the same, to the same environmental stimuli, but they more pass through the brain unacted upon. Once there's awareness of the thought and where acting upon it leads, it can more just pass through. Behaviour changes

Nick

 

[Stout]

Articulett...ethnogen is a term used to describe psychoactive drugs eg, psilocybin, LSD taken in a ritualised format ( or so I had it explained to me ) in order to "learn" or "discover" things. I'm assuming the term is meant to elevate the seriousness or the motivation for taking these drugs above the typical...Hey, let's get ripped

Have you ever heard anyone refer to drugs as teachers?

Upthread, you said you've never tried hallucinogens so, a quick summary of their effects would say..You see things differently, you create relationships between objects and ideas that, in my case, seemed astounding and revealing while I was under the influence but rather silly the next day.

Example...while on mushrooms I figured that your born, you live, you die, you get buried, you rot, you turn into a mushroom, and somebody eats you. Therefore mushrooms were really a little bit of someone's soul, and by extension so were all other plants. ( I know, work with me on that one ) So if one were to seek wisdom, all one had to do was go a contemplating in the woods and the secrets of the universe will be revealed to you.

It wasn't just me...there were three of us, all repeating that same nonsense over, and over between massive fits of giggling.

 

[hammegk]

Perhaps I should restate -- there are many who simply don't care 'bout the distinction. Paul is one. Robin identifies as a materialist but is not so dogmatic as some of you guys seem to imply.

Point taken. Robin iirc posted in this thread.

Who says that?

YMMV on what you read into the posts of several our most dogmatic zealots. What is taken for granted imo is that non-materialists, at best, are nutty as fruit cakes, not to mention "full of woo".

Physicalism, idealism, what difference does it make? Science is just science. It examines the way the game is played whatever the underlying playing material. I know of a few folks here who do not think that science requires materialism.

Yup, although I think we can count all of 'em here using our thumbs.

 

[articulett]

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

It was you who mentioned "fear"... and that we materialists are supposedly "afraid" of something... Now you are claiming that you didn't say that and that you ARE a materialist? I don't think anyone but you is following you.

 

[articulett]

Articulett...ethnogen is a term used to describe psychoactive drugs eg, psilocybin, LSD taken in a ritualised format ( or so I had it explained to me ) in order to "learn" or "discover" things. I'm assuming the term is meant to elevate the seriousness or the motivation for taking these drugs above the typical...Hey, let's get ripped

Have you ever heard anyone refer to drugs as teachers?

Upthread, you said you've never tried hallucinogens so, a quick summary of their effects would say..You see things differently, you create relationships between objects and ideas that, in my case, seemed astounding and revealing while I was under the influence but rather silly the next day.

Example...while on mushrooms I figured that your born, you live, you die, you get buried, you rot, you turn into a mushroom, and somebody eats you. Therefore mushrooms were really a little bit of someone's soul, and by extension so were all other plants. ( I know, work with me on that one ) So if one were to seek wisdom, all one had to do was go a contemplating in the woods and the secrets of the universe will be revealed to you.

It wasn't just me...there were three of us, all repeating that same nonsense over, and over between massive fits of giggling.

Well they appear to be a bad teacher, because mushrooms aren't plants--they belong in the fungi kingdom.

Of course you weren't totally off topic--microbes like fungi are extremely important in the "circle of life".

 

[Nick227]

Upthread, you said you've never tried hallucinogens so, a quick summary of their effects would say..You see things differently, you create relationships between objects and ideas that, in my case, seemed astounding and revealing while I was under the influence but rather silly the next day.

Example...while on mushrooms I figured that your born, you live, you die, you get buried, you rot, you turn into a mushroom, and somebody eats you. Therefore mushrooms were really a little bit of someone's soul, and by extension so were all other plants. ( I know, work with me on that one ) So if one were to seek wisdom, all one had to do was go a contemplating in the woods and the secrets of the universe will be revealed to you.

It wasn't just me...there were three of us, all repeating that same nonsense over, and over between massive fits of giggling.

Yeah, this is why they're so good for OCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder. The chaos must break up the ritualised patterns in the brain. Either that or they connect you to a deeper place. I think they're called entheogens, btw. Coming to a pharmacy near you soon.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

If really pushed, I think most folks who identify themselves as either physicalists or materialists would readily admit that they begin with an assumption. The same should be true of idealists. I can't think of any philosophical system that doesn't begin with an assumption of some sort.

Having done a lot of very intense group therapeutic processes in my time, my experience is that pretty much everyone (possibly bar sociopaths) will break down under even just moderate social pressure. It's a healing process. Yes, all these things are founded on assumptions, and deep inside people know it. They just live in a culture that patronises the desire to not look.

Nick

 

[Stout]

Of course you weren't totally off topic--microbes like fungi are extremely important in the "circle of life".

This is true, and I was a biology student at the time I had that experience. I simply took what I knew of biology and expanded it to mean the same thing in the spiritual realm. I took a little personal licence in cramming the fungi in with the plants, cause it fir that particular "philosophy" better.

Nick I stand corrected on the term, I did mean entheogens.

I dunno, maybe they might help with certain patterned behaviour, cue that scene featuring Tina Turner from the movie Tommy. It's a topic I'm unable to comment on because I don't know anything about it.

Interesting comments about breaking down under social pressure. I have this internet friend from another board who just raves about Landmark Education forums and even though I linked him to everything I could find that was critical about LE he still insisted that even though it's a YMMV thing he personally felt he benefited a great deal from The Forum.

 

[articulett]

Is anyone following Nick? I feel like I sort of understand him, but he's gone off into psychiatry babble mode. What does an idealist believe? What assumptions is Nick making or is he claiming not to make them? Is he an "idealist". What does he imagine people on this thread are fearing? Why does Nick remind me so much of Tom Cruise's zany Scientologist tape? I understand the meaning of all the words, but I can't find the point or crux of anything he's saying. Can someone help me? Is he speaking woo or is he conveying something useful to someone.

Maybe you can help me Nick. What was your reasoning for posting on this thread? What is your main point? What do you believe about consciousness that is different than what a materialist assumes?

 

[articulett]

This is true, and I was a biology student at the time I had that experience. I simply took what I knew of biology and expanded it to mean the same thing in the spiritual realm. I took a little personal licence in cramming the fungi in with the plants, cause it fir that particular "philosophy" better.

Nick I stand corrected on the term, I did mean entheogens.

I dunno, maybe they might help with certain patterned behaviour, cue that scene featuring Tina Turner from the movie Tommy. It's a topic I'm unable to comment on because I don't know anything about it.

Interesting comments about breaking down under social pressure. I have this internet friend from another board who just raves about Landmark Education forums and even though I linked him to everything I could find that was critical about LE he still insisted that even though it's a YMMV thing he personally felt he benefited a great deal from The Forum.

Was "fir" (instead of "fit") a pun because we were talking about cramming things that are not quite plants into the plant family? If not, it was apropos, nevertheless.

Ibogaine is a hallucinogen that has an amazing ability to help many hard core drug addicts--it stops drug seeking behavior which is very OCD-ish...

 

[JoeEllison]

Is anyone following Nick? I feel like I sort of understand him, but he's gone off into psychiatry babble mode. What does an idealist believe? What assumptions is Nick making or is he claiming not to make them? Is he an "idealist". What does he imagine people on this thread are fearing? Why does Nick remind me so much of Tom Cruise's zany Scientologist tape? I understand the meaning of all the words, but I can't find the point or crux of anything he's saying. Can someone help me? Is he speaking woo or is he conveying something useful to someone.

Maybe you can help me Nick. What was your reasoning for posting on this thread? What is your main point? What do you believe about consciousness that is different than what a materialist assumes?

I second that... I'd like some concrete, simple answers, that get to the heart of whatever Nick is going on about. All the vague talk is pretty much useless to me. Maybe he does have a point, but the only time he's been direct is when he's attacking things he doesn't accept. He gets all fuzzy when it comes to his own ideas.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ya think? I sure haven't seen that here.

That is one approach. I don't like the first corollary physicalism/materialism carries, so I don't choose it. YMMV.

The truly laughable part seen here is the belief that science requires the choice of physicalism/materialism.

I also have yet to see a materialist admitting that first they have an assumption And it is utterly rubbish to state that science requires materialism. Exactly the same as to state that science requires the bible.

That said, I know why materialists are so fast in trying to fight anything that (to them) appears woo. It is important that they do that. They are like the first barrier from coming from absolute woo (mediums, mind super powers, etc) to a woo that at least is based on some facts.

What is the first corollary of materialism that you mention?

One more thing, please note that I do not equate physicalism with materialism. The last one is rubbish, the first one, on the other hand, one of the best world-views that is possible (as of this day).

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I second that... I'd like some concrete, simple answers, that get to the heart of whatever Nick is going on about. All the vague talk is pretty much useless to me. Maybe he does have a point, but the only time he's been direct is when he's attacking things he doesn't accept. He gets all fuzzy when it comes to his own ideas.

I have yet to catch up with the thread, but I believe he proposed something about a non dual view. I'm looking forward to read it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Physicalism, idealism, what difference does it make? Science is just science. It examines the way the game is played whatever the underlying playing material. I know of a few folks here who do not think that science requires materialism.

Wow! Yes Yes at last! someone who do understand! What I find laughable is those who automatically believe:

"if someone is not a materialist, then is a woo" (religious thinking, anyone?)

Sure, most of the people who don't believe in materialism are actually worst than they (in the sense that they are even more woo) but one thing doesn't follow the other.

 

[articulett]

I don't understand Bodhi either. And I've long had Martillo on ignore... so I only read his incomprehensible blurbs when he appears in other posts.

I don't care rather materialism makes assumptions or not-- I just want to know what the hell someone else has proposed that is different and what are assumptions go with those. To me, non materialists discussing consciousness are like creationists discussing evolution. They are poking at something robust, hoping to kill it-- because they do not want it to be true, but they never offer anything better while implying that they secretly "know" of some better explanation.

I think they never propose their alternative, because they know it would stink next to the established mode. It's useless except as a meme to make them feel like they know something while knowing nothing at all.

 

[hammegk]

I also have yet to see a materialist admitting that first they have an assumption

I have some trouble recalling that, too.

And it is utterly rubbish to state that science requires materialism. Exactly the same as to state that science requires the bible.

Of course.

That said, I know why materialists are so fast in trying to fight anything that (to them) appears woo. It is important that they do that. They are like the first barrier from coming from absolute woo (mediums, mind super powers, etc) to a woo that at least is based on some facts.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say there.

What is the first corollary of materialism that you mention?

Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103081.

One more thing, please note that I do not equate physicalism with materialism. The last one is rubbish, the first one, on the other hand, one of the best world-views that is possible (as of this day).

YMMV on that.

IMO, physicalism is the pig-that-is-materialism wearing lipstick.

 

[Dancing David]

I would agree with you but for the fact that I and plenty of other people also experience life without the filter that creates the experience of personal identity. Thus to distinguish between the experience of personal identity and the actuality of personal identity is to me entirely valid. You seem to me to be one minute advocating rational materialism and the other completely reversing your stance and being fine with a merely subjective study.

Nick

There is a simple resolution (thank you Jason ) in the teachings of the AHB, there are the 'pugala'(?) which are the usage of people to the common self, as a part of speech. The experience of person hood is the actuality. There is no distinction, there is no mind, and there is only brain. The experience and the actuality are the same. , materialism by evidence is not is not dualist.

How can an outside observer verify something different between the two, how can the internal process determine a difference? It can not be tested. However the personal experience correlates at a very high level (99.99999999%) to the biochemical brain. I give it the repeating nines because there is a possibility that evidence will be produced that would demonstrate experience in the absence of a neural network of some sort.

Behaviorism is not totally subjective, it appears that you are in solipsism, which is not testable. The biological basis of experience can be excluded if a case for experience is put forwards for something that is not a neural network of some sort.

Please look up 'radical behaviorism', although as I said I am more of a methodologist.
Therefore the biological basis of the subjective experience can be falsified.

 

[Dancing David]

I think you'll find that science has some problems with measuring pain. This does not mean that you can't assess pain, merely that it's hard to do so scientifically. You can ask someone if they're hurting, but this is subjective analysis.

In many psychological fields much use is made of subjective data. Assessing depression with the BDI, or monitoring withdrawal symptoms in detoxing addicts are examples. You ask the subject questions and you record their responses. The data is put against previous results or data acquired from the same subject earlier on. But this is subjective analysis. I'm asking for hard evidence - apparatus, measurement, objectivity - proper science.

Nick

Paging Jeff Corey...paging Jeff Corey... paging Jeff Corey....

Paging Mercutio...paging Mercutio...paging Mercutio...

This is more dualism, you can measure personal experience directly, you are a flaming dualist. The validity of the measure is another issue.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not.