Subjectivity and Science

[articulett]

I can't make sense of what you are saying Dharma... I know you think materialists are woos... because you've said as much. You also seem to be hearing things that are not said and you do this a lot. I don't know what physicalism is and I understand Pixy much better than I understand you. I have never said science and materialism are synonymous nor that religion, philosophy, and woo are synonymous. Dennett is a philosopher and so is Shermer.

It's just, to me, you guys are all dissing materialism and no one really knows why you think it's "woo" or what you propose that makes more sense or is better or even how you approach consciousness differently. You attack, but offer nothing in return for examination. That is exactly what creationists do.

After a while it all sounds the same to me... and it's the underlying theme of Tom Cruise's Scientology video "my woo is true, and I'm better than you... "

Okay, whatever. Check back in with us if you ever have any evidence for why we should give more respect to your opinions or philosophies than you give ours.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You also seem to be hearing things that are not said and you do this a lot. I don't know what physicalism is and I understand Pixy much better than I understand you. I have never said science and materialism are synonymous nor that religion, philosophy, and woo are synonymous.

Strawmans? You can do better. Pixy is full of nonsense. Here, just for the sake of it (because I can see now that you are not willing to discuss).

Pixy said: "Consciousness is a function of the brain"

UTTERLY RUBBISH

Consciousness is deeply related to the brain but it needs more than a brain to, well, perform. No, sorry to disappoint you, nothing magical, just perceptions, and a world, and other consciousness, and a language.

Lets see one more (I had hopes on you, but have seen nothing interesting, you claim to be intelligent but then again get offended by a smile.

Pixy said: "As I said, we know it's created by the brain"

Yeah. Sure.

I rest my case. Now, you seem to have an echo (the good JoeEllison), but I fail to see how you two (despite asking others for their world-views when all you have done is adopted one without even grasping its full assumptions) have anything of value to say. All I see is that you are fast to criticize. What else you can do?

Oh I almost forgot. For physicalism you can go to wikipedia, it always helps, and read again your previous post. You assume things and then seem unable to recognize your own assumptions!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

After a while it all sounds the same to me... and it's the underlying theme of Tom Cruise's Scientology video "my woo is true, and I'm better than you... "

Funny thing. You end up doing EXACTLY the same, your attitude (or pixy's) is arrogant as hell and you two do believe that you are better than all those you call woo.

Well, I dare you, where is my woo? Read, point by point, the post in which I state more than my disbelieve in naive materialism. You asked for more than criticism, I posted it, and you have said nothing to prove me wrong.

And I dare you just in that sense, because, I do recognize I can be arrogant at some point.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy, if you haven't noticed naturalism is physicalism/materialism updated with modern bells & whistles, you are a lot slower than I think you are.

Metaphysical naturalism is the assumption that the universe behaves as if the fundamental nature of reality is material. An abstract form of materialism, in other words. And that is, indeed, the foundation of science.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

I think every clause in this paragraph is understated.

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.

Nope. Subjectivity is not a problem. The circuit I mentioned earlier has subjectivity, but it's quite easily understood in purely objective terms.

The problem with understanding human consciousness is not the subjective aspects, but the complexity of the human brain.

 

[PixyMisa]

Articulett, not everyone who disagrees with materialism is a dualist, or believes in souls, or believe that because something is not explainable in scientific terms then is because science is "wrong".

In theory, sure. In practice, though, yes, people who disagree with materialism are almost always dualists who ignore their own metaphysical inconsistencies so that the can believe in a lot of comforting nonsense.

That said, it is funny to read, over and over, how materialists are as woo as the ones they (think) they are educating!

Such as?

Things like "mind is already explained" are simply and utterly rubbish.

And who said that, and in what context?

Come on, and I'm appealing to your intelligence here, if a bunch of people say that they understand how an organism breathe (a function of the body, like, materialists say, mind is a function of the brain) then they should be able to make a working model of the breathing process.

Why?

Funny thing is that NOBODY in the world is able to even make a simplistic model of consciousness because (simply) no body has been even able to even make a good description of what is going to be modeled!

I've pointed out that it is possible to build a simple electronc circuit that exhibits all the essential aspects of consciousness. Dennett argues that even simpler systems can be conscious. If you consider my arguments, or his, to be flawed, then you have to actually state what the flaw is.

 

[PixyMisa]

Strawmans? You can do better. Pixy is full of nonsense. Here, just for the sake of it (because I can see now that you are not willing to discuss).

Pixy said: "Consciousness is a function of the brain"

UTTERLY RUBBISH

Really?

Consciousness is deeply related to the brain but it needs more than a brain to, well, perform. No, sorry to disappoint you, nothing magical, just perceptions

Consciousness is brain function. Perception is information fed into the brain.

and a world

Why do you need a world? You have perceptions already.

and other consciousness

Why do you need other consciousness? If every other animal on the face of the Earth suddenly dropped dead, I would be aware of that fact.

and a language.

A language? Really? Why?

Lets see one more (I had hopes on you, but have seen nothing interesting, you claim to be intelligent but then again get offended by a smile.

That's because the only time you use a smilie in your posts is when you are insulting someone.

Pixy said: "As I said, we know it's created by the brain"

Yeah. Sure.

Yes, we're sure. If you have a counter-example, present it. If you have a counter-argument, present that. If you just want to jump up and down and cry because no-one is listening to you, proceed as you have been.

I rest my case. Now, you seem to have an echo (the good JoeEllison), but I fail to see how you two (despite asking others for their world-views when all you have done is adopted one without even grasping its full assumptions) have anything of value to say. All I see is that you are fast to criticize. What else you can do?

You haven't made a case, so it's kind of early to rest it.

Oh I almost forgot. For physicalism you can go to wikipedia, it always helps, and read again your previous post. You assume things and then seem unable to recognize your own assumptions!

What assumptions?

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Then you clearly aren't reading the posts of the people you are attacking. That explains a great deal.

And it is utterly rubbish to state that science requires materialism.

It requires metaphysical naturalism.

Exactly the same as to state that science requires the bible.

Really? How is that the same?

That said, I know why materialists are so fast in trying to fight anything that (to them) appears woo.

All we are doing is asking for evidence to support your claims, or at the very least, a coherent statement of what your claims are.

The latter is rarely forthcoming; the former, never.

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).

Physicalism is materialism, BDZ. Hard-core rock-ribbed materialism, lacking even the abstraction that naturalism possesses.

 

[PixyMisa]

Personally, I figure the "I" is an artifact of libidinal drive, the need for emotions to be truly felt and thoughts acted upon.

Why do you figure that?

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.

Why would you want to do that?

You have to restrict their sleep or something, you need to drive them a bit crazy so they can start to let go.

So your bizarre personal philosophy leads to a culture of systematic abuse? Interesting.

They need to fully identify with feelings.

Why do they need to do that?

When they've done that they can let go of the identification.

Even if that were possible, why would they want it?

The thoughts arise the same, to the same environmental stimuli, but they more pass through the brain unacted upon.

Ah. They are so deeply abused, they are now catatonic?

Once there's awareness of the thought and where acting upon it leads, it can more just pass through. Behaviour changes

Behaviour would appear to cease at this point.

 

[articulett]

Funny thing. You end up doing EXACTLY the same, your attitude (or pixy's) is arrogant as hell and you two do believe that you are better than all those you call woo.

Well, I dare you, where is my woo? Read, point by point, the post in which I state more than my disbelieve in naive materialism. You asked for more than criticism, I posted it, and you have said nothing to prove me wrong.

And I dare you just in that sense, because, I do recognize I can be arrogant at some point.

I don't know where your woo is... I can't even figure out half of what you are saying. That's why it's like Tom Cruise's woo. He uses a lot of words to imply some things, but he says nothing. I get the part about you thinking materialism is woo, I just don't understand what your alternative view is. Whatever it is, it seems like you are mad because materialists must not believe in it. I want to know how you perceive your view as different than Tom Cruise's view expressed nebulously on his recent Scientologist tape. How is different from materialism?

Oh, and we understand the uterus, we still can't build them to grow babies in... the same goes for hearts... your brain analogy is a straw man as pixy noted. (Why do I feel I am talking to a reincarnation of Hammegk?)

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, and we understand the uterus, we still can't build them to grow babies in...

Good example.

the same goes for hearts...

Actually, we can build working models of hearts.

Brains: No.
Hearts: Yes.
Lungs: Yes.
Kidneys: Yes.
Livers: No.
Uteruses: No.

What else? Bone marrow: No. Ears: Yes. Eyes: Yes.

 

[articulett]

Good example.

Actually, we can build working models of hearts.

Brains: No.
Hearts: Yes.
Lungs: Yes.
Kidneys: Yes.
Livers: No.
Uteruses: No.

What else? Bone marrow: No. Ears: Yes. Eyes: Yes.

I forgot about the Jarvis heart!

We humans are getting better and better at upgrading ourselves...

Didn't interesting Ian always use the "you can't recreate a brain" straw man?

Not knowing everything about consciousness is like not knowing everything about evolution-- it doesn't mean some mystic has the missing information. Not being able to build a brain (although a computer is much like a brain) is not really evidence FOR any claim, is it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Didn't interesting Ian always use the "you can't recreate a brain" straw man?

I don't remember... It all becomes a blur after a while.

Not knowing everything about consciousness is like not knowing everything about evolution-- it doesn't mean some mystic has the missing information.

Yep.

Not being able to build a brain (although a computer is much like a brain) is not really evidence FOR any claim, is it.

It serves for those who don't care about little things like logic or evidence. But it doesn't do so well when neuroscientists are doing things like this:

Brain in a dish flies flight simulator

Or, conversely, this:

An ambitious project in Switzerland was scoffed at - but researchers have just succeeded in simulating a rat's brain in silicon

That latter headline is not very accurate - so far, they've simulated a single neocortical column, a substantial remove from the entire brain, even of a rat. But there's no intrinsic scaling problem here, and indeed, the next phase of the project is to simulate the entire neocortex.

We might have working models of the brain before we have working models of the liver....

 

[articulett]

I just have a feeling that no amount of evidence will ever be enough... there is never enough evidence to get a believer of woo (whether conspiracy theorists or dualist or creationist) to give up the woo that makes them feel special. They have to want the truth more than they want to believe they already have it.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Wrong. Materialism is a belief system, and incomplete one. I prefer physicalism. On the other hand, a lack of believe is the stand of a skeptic. And again, I have to state that "science" and "materialism" are NOT synonymous!

Well, I made a little Wikipedia trip, as you suggested to articulett, but still fail to see a meaningful distinction between physicalism and materialism. What’s perplexing to me is bolded:

In contemporary philosophy physicalism is most frequently associated with philosophy of mind, in particular the mind/body problem, in which it holds that the mind is a physical thing in all senses. In other words, all that has been ascribed to "mind" is more correctly ascribed to "brain". Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles. Some philosophers use the term "materialism" to denote descriptions based on the motions of matter and "physicalism" for descriptions based on matter and world geometry (see: Stoljar 2001).

Bodhi, in what way do you think physicalism differs from materialism? What’s the pragmatic difference for you?

Consciousness is deeply related to the brain but it needs more than a brain to, well, perform.

What exactly makes you think that... other from that ‘it just feels that way’?

 

[Mobyseven]

Consciousness is deeply related to the brain but it needs more than a brain to, well, perform.

Such as? What are the other necessary conditions for consciousness?

 

[Nick227]

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?

Hi Articulett,

I'm saying that objectivity has an assumption at its foundation, the assumption of the limited observer. That this limited observer only exists notionally can be demonstrated, subjectively, through self-examination or, objectively, through noting the absence of any hard evidence for the existence of any personal "I." In trying to create a meaningful relationship in one's mind between objectivity and subjectivity I would consider this to be a useful point to grasp.

I don't use the c word much, but to answer your question I guess it could well be that consciousness arises from the brain, but then the brain is only experienced as an entity arising in consciousness. So it's a bit chicken and egg to me.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

Well, in trying to demonstrate to you that there's no substantial "I" that exists, it would only be an act of manipulation of me to seek to put something in its place. That's the business of gurus, politicians and media magnates. I'm not here to tell you what to think. The arisal of thought, and the experience of identification with thought, dictate your personality anyway.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

There is the body, within the body are thoughts, emotions, sensation and habits.

It is in the world. that is all. No identification except in the common usage of an individual body.

You still haven't presented evidence that experience is not limited to an individual body.

Well, I'm not trying to do that. I'm pointing out that the core of the experience "I" seems to be entirely notional.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nobody is saying that consciousness is fully explained any more than evolution is fully explained. Nobody is claiming divine knowledge on the subject. Materialsim is the default position-- there is no supernatural anything until evidence suggests that there is. That's anti woo. Not being able to explain something fully is NOT woo (see: evolution)-- adding supernatural elements or fuzzy nothingness into the equation to facilitate understanding is. Moreover, it doesn't actually explain or facilitate the understanding of anything.

Materialism is more of a lack of a belief than a belief. There is no magic anything until the evidence shows otherwise. We can stop looking for magic, because we understand that if something wondrous exists, the evidence for it will accumulate. Science can't explain everything, but religion and philosophy and woo don't really seem to explain anything.

You dis materialists, but don't lay your differences on the table for equal examination. You are like the skeptics that come here claiming to be "skeptical of the skeptics". Fine, if that makes you feel good-- But to me, it's just like creationists dissing evolution-- it's a delusion that props up the ego of the deluded (SeeTom Cruise's Scientology video for a stellar example.)

Hi Articulett,

Why don't you start a thread on this Tom Cruise thing. You're obviously very busy with it and I would happily learn more about it.

I'm basically humanist in perspective so my take is that it's important that whatever belief system you subscribe to it helps you get your needs met. I mean, if you're familiar with non-duality, identification, and all this stuff you know that beliefs aren't really much of a big deal anyway, so I always think the best thing is to pick a belief system that gets your needs met. If materialism does it for you, that's cool.

Nick