Subjectivity and Science

[John Freestone]

Woovicles

Excuse me....woovicles ???

That's just too funny.

John, I quite like the word and given that I wrote a lengthy response to one of your posts last night of science as a belief, but deleted it because even I couldn't understand what I was talking about. But, this morning I found inspiration in the word woovicle.

Is it your assertion that science's refusal, or inability to consider the effect of unseen forces like woovicles causing you to categorize science as a belief ?

Thanks. Oh it's a pity you deleted it - in my experience other people understand me better than I do myself when things get difficult! Someone might have translated it for you.

You're not trolling, are you? I'll try again. There's nothing special about science. Any thought is based on beliefs. A set of related thoughts, ideas that form theories and are meant to fit together into one whole theory as best we can - i.e. a philosophy - must surely be based on beliefs. You can't go into a lab and conduct an experiment without beliefs. Many of them are not even thought about or formalised. It seems to me a fundamental condition of humanity that we have limited perception of whatever might be perceived, and those limits are largely constructed by our beliefs, our assumptions. Pinching ourselves doesn't prove we're awake.

So we don't need to go too much into woovicles, it's just that that is where the beliefs begin to show up more obviously, because interpretation becomes so difficult and things are so counterintuitive.

Would you say that you believe that a statement has to be either true or false, and that logic is part of science? Is it a belief? Would you say that a particle of matter can be in two places at once? Is that a belief? How do you know? How do you decide what is just bleedin obvious and what needs to be discovered or deduced unless you are infallible?

 

[Nick227]

Hi Nick 227!

I am not finding existential anxiety in the DSM IV-R could you provide that reference please?

Hi David,

I looked on Wikipedia and it seems to be a branch of Anxiety relating to fear of death, or dealing with the issue of one day not being here anymore. This is also mentioned in a review of psilocybin's medicinal uses on Wikipedia. Interesting that they administer a tryptamine for it. Quite a novel approach.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

It seems you are not saying, what makes it evident about there not being individual bodies that experience? (That is what i called hiding.)

Hi David,

The visual field of a person contains the body, for sure. Viewed as non-dual there are many objects around. But the experience of identification vastly reinforces the experience of individuality. There's a body, so what? There are thoughts, so what? Only identification creates this sense of "I/not I" polarity, this sense of a sharply defined region that is "I."

Nick

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Excellent post!

Right, but what I think he is basically saying is that the world that you think is out there is not really what is actually out there. We create this world, in some sense.

Yes, precisely, still I would say that in every sense we "create" it. One thing is how we explain the invariances in perception, and another different to give such things a name (matter, god, nature). I used " " because this creation is in no sense related to its religious meaning.

Look at it from a science perspective -- what is really out there is a blooming, buzzing mess of strings comprising quarks, etc. with most of everything that we think of a solid being empty space. And add dark matter and dark energy to the mix -- we have no clue what they are and they comprise 95% of what is 'out there'.

And yet we have to remember that all these are MERELY descriptive tools that allow us to make predictions. Nothing more, there is a "substance" (so to speak) behind the concepts, but as the map is not the territory, our concepts have not substance beyond the meanings we ascribe to them.

He isn't saying that there isn't really anything out there (actually he is, but I think that idea is tied to another basic concept, which is why I think it isn't a good place to start), but that what we experience isn't the 'real reality'.

Exactly, there are no tables and no spoons. Both are constructs, both conceptually and perceptually. Both are THINGS FOR US, not "in themselfs" (if such a concept was meaningful this is).

We all know that our perceptual systems filter an enormous amount of data that exists 'out there', but our brains also construct the means by which any of that data has meaning. We create meaning from that blooming, buzzing mess 'out there' through not only our perceptual filters but also our cognitive set-up.

Perceptual system works both filtering and creating the result. Its like abstract data in computer. Depending on how we choose to depict the information, it will have certain characteristics, but such are not in the input signal. Take, for instance, the info in a hard drive. You can convert it to a certain arrangement of photons in a screen, with certain shape and determinate design, and what you are seeing is related to the original info, but nothing like it. In other words, it is simply FOOLISH to think that you are seeing (or can see) the data of the hard drive as IT IS.

The deeper philosophical idea that underlies all of this -- again from a science perspective -- is that the universe itself may be a 'nothing' -- all the matter and energy may exactly balance so that in some grand equation it all equals one big zero. But we live within a momentary flicker (in the greater realm of an eternity) where all the forces of the universe are separated and we can experience time and matter and energy as a something. Despite this, it is all an illusion in the greater scheme of things.

Poetic, and correct!

Goes all the way back to Parminides in the western tradition. Everything is illusion.

And Shankara in the east.

But, even if it is, it's a damn persistent illusion and worth spending time working out the details in my opinion.

Agreed!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

When we talk about scientific explanations, we are talking about predictive models. The thing about a predictive model is it makes predictions. And the thing about predictions is that you can check whether they are true.

And they are. Science explains things in a way nothing else does. Science works.

You got half right. Yes, science is about predictions, and yes, it can predict more than any other tool we have used (like religion). That said, science DOESN'T EXPLAIN anything, it describes some things and it is rewarded with good predictions some times.

That's the difference. An explanation assumes you know what is going on ("this is that" meaning: you grasp the territory) a description is, and always will be, a map, and nothing more.

 

[Stout]

John...no, I'm not trolling. Like I said upthread, I'm new to this whole idea of calling science a belief, and although I tend to prefer accepting science as being the default position, or philosophy. I thought I'd at least try to understand the idea before rejecting it.

And seriously...I did spit coffee all over my monitor when I read woovicles

But why does science need to be based on belief ? Speaking in terms of black and white, or absolutes, it's a natural position to observe that if I hold a stone in my hand and let go of it, it will fall to the ground..always. Science calls this gravity, tells me that this force exists between all objects with mass and is dependant on the sum total of the masses in question.

Science even gives me measurements for those forces. So what belief is involved ? That gravity can be only one theory ? True, gravity isn't 100% understood but in order for science to be just a belief, wouldn't there have to be another, competing belief out there to contest with the scientific viewpoint that stones fall to the ground due to gravity ?

Wait...I've got one. God makes stones fall to the ground, it's God's will that stones should fall. But that just brings us back to another statement I made upthread about ( IMO ) having to subscribe to one belief system that you feel trumps the scientific viewpoint in order to accept that science is itself another belief system. That's all my faith free brain can come up with as a way to try and understand the science is a belief system, viewpoint.

That...and I thought woovicles might show some promise.

As to all statements being true or false, I suppose that would depend on a clearly defined set of circumstances that object or process were being subjected to. I almost went insane in organic chemistry due to all the variables that might cause, or might not cause a reaction to occur, or not occur, to produce what it is you're trying to produce.

As confusing as those variables were, there was never any suggestion of belief as a variable at all. There was no, unexplained, this reaction will only happen on tuesdays, or in the presence of the music of the mighty Led Zepplin. In short there were no wild cards,,or anything of the sort to suggest that something "else" might be going on other than A+B --> C

Is logic a belief ? I don't know, I suppose it could be called one, but science is going to test a logical conclusion to see if it is indeed, logical and will most likely reject a conclusion inferred by logic in the face of experimental evidence.

Particles of matter being in two places at once ? Logically, I'd say no. but were a scientist to show me that it were possible, then I would be forced to abandon my logical conclusion and accept yes, as a new reality.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Consciousness should be a verb. Can you point to "running", put it under the microscope? You can see a relation of parts that we call 'running', but where is the 'running' itself? It's just a verb that we treat like a noun.

Agreed, or how about a place (instead of a thing). The place in which the world occurs, the plateu where the story happens.

 

[Nick227]

One way of looking at is lumpers vs. spiltters, I think. Really when you get down to it, if we accept monism then it's all just one long process and we 'create' artificial boundaries between different bits of the grand process.

It seems to me it is some form of process and that this experience of personal identity is merely a side-effect that arises in bringing into awareness the subconscious dynamic. Once this has been made adequately conscious, the experience of personal identity begins to dissipate.

The issue, or hold-up, or blockage, occurs because the exterior vision of the world that can develop as a result of this side-effect has a tendency to "lock up" and try and assert itself as a priori primary.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

You got half right. Yes, science is about predictions, and yes, it can predict more than any other tool we have used (like religion). That said, science DOESN'T EXPLAIN anything, it describes some things and it is rewarded with good predictions some times.

That is an explanation.

That's the difference. An explanation assumes you know what is going on ("this is that" meaning: you grasp the territory) a description is, and always will be, a map, and nothing more.

The description is a map, but it's not a description of a map, it's a description of a territory. You're sticking in an extra level of indirection where there is none.

 

[articulett]

Yes, I sure as hell can't imagine why one would want to insert something into the materialism... it's like inserting god as an explanation to fill in some gap in understanding or to feel special without really saying anything useful.

I don't see the point. It sounds like word games to imply something but not really say anything at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

All they have is word games.

Just back on my previous point, with BDZ's absurd claim that science doesn't explain anything:

The purpose of explanations is understanding. And if you understand something, you know what it will do before it does it.

Clearly, not only does science provides explanations, it is the only thing that does.

 

[Stout]

Clearly, not only does science provides explanations, it is the only thing that does.

That's what I figure too, which is why I'm having a nigh on impossible time accepting that science could be considered a belief system.

 

[Jeff Corey]

All they have is word games.

Just back on my previous point, with BDZ's absurd claim that science doesn't explain anything:

The purpose of explanations is understanding. And if you understand something, you know what it will do before it does it.

Clearly, not only does science provides explanations, it is the only thing that does.

Maybe he means science doesn't explain anything at the level he might prefer. For me as a behaviorist, finding a replicatable functional relationship between an independent variable and some reliable measure of behavior suffices at the beginning. Then generalizing from a number of these established relationships to laws is even better. Then attempting to falsify these laws to see how robust they are is the next step.
That's explanation.
Skinner stated that the goal of psychology was the prediction and control of behavior. The field has gotten much more "cognitive" or wooish since he wrote that, but it still works for me.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But I disagree to a large extent about the ability to share experiences. Experiences are just information, and information is substrate neutral. You don't run into fundamental problems until you start nitpicking with questions like "Can my mind remember experiencing your experience the same way that your mind remembers experiencing it?" Now, this requires extensive messing about with brain structure; it's easy with computers, a lot harder with people. But not impossible.

For me, its like arguing in favor of time traveling. There are to many puzzles when you make simply thought experiments than it is better to leave the hypothesis and wait for the answer.

 

[articulett]

Science explains our origins better than anything else.

 

[PixyMisa]

For me, its like arguing in favor of time traveling. There are to many puzzles when you make simply thought experiments than it is better to leave the hypothesis and wait for the answer.

It's actually the exact opposite of time travel. Time travel is logically possible, but physically impossible. Experiencing another person's experience is, depending on the definitions you are using, either physically possible or logically impossible.

Like HPC and the Mary thingy, the real problem is with philosophers not defining their terms properly.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi David,

The visual field of a person contains the body, for sure. Viewed as non-dual there are many objects around. But the experience of identification vastly reinforces the experience of individuality. There's a body, so what? There are thoughts, so what? Only identification creates this sense of "I/not I" polarity, this sense of a sharply defined region that is "I."

Nick

Hmm,

I will try again. While there are concepts, thoughts and the like, there are also the experiences. So , yes, it can help to decouple personal attachment to thoughts and feelings, especialy regarding the notion of the self.

What I am pointing to is this:

Regardless of the ontology it appears that certain thoughts and experiences are limited to the individual bodies.

For example, the memories of a specific event seem to be bounded by an individual body, and while they may be communicated from one to another, they are not shared.

It is not the sense of 'I' that creates this, it appears that there are seperate bodies.

For example, the experiences that are associated with a body seem to be limited to a body, so 'this body' does not see through the eyes of 'that body' when they are sitting next to each other.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi David,

I looked on Wikipedia and it seems to be a branch of Anxiety relating to fear of death, or dealing with the issue of one day not being here anymore. This is also mentioned in a review of psilocybin's medicinal uses on Wikipedia. Interesting that they administer a tryptamine for it. Quite a novel approach.

Nick

So, it is not is the DSM IV-R?

I saw what you linked to.

Could be great stuff, but for a long time , and since reinforced by chaos theory, I tend to look for simple processes that create complex behaviors.

 

[Dancing David]

It seems to me it is some form of process and that this experience of personal identity is merely a side-effect that arises in bringing into awareness the subconscious dynamic. Once this has been made adequately conscious, the experience of personal identity begins to dissipate.

The issue, or hold-up, or blockage, occurs because the exterior vision of the world that can develop as a result of this side-effect has a tendency to "lock up" and try and assert itself as a priori primary.

Nick

I agree that ego identity is another tool, it sure is not always the best tool.

Again I feel the AHB stated it all very well, and that the eightfold path works well for me.

 

[Dancing David]

Posted by Johm Freestone
Generally, I consider reductionism as one of the limitations of science, if that's any help,

It might seem that is an a priori bias.

While we can argue what the use of reductionism might mean in terms of philosophy, it is not the model that I talk about.
a. There is the apparent universe, the ontology of it is moot to this POV.
b. There appears to be separate bodies in the world and they occur at different scales, some combine and divide at different scales.
c. Regardless of the ontology, it appears that isotropy, IE causal relations, apply to the observable universe.
d. Reductionism in the sense that I use it is not the notion that all things are divided into ‘atoms’ but that all things seem to be comprised of multiple factors. Which is why I call my self a pluralist. Every where that the world is observed I seem to note that a plurality of players and forces exist. So it could be factorism, because it contains the notions that there may separate factors, blended factors and factors that are really expressions of the same ‘thing’, so again the ontology is moot.
e. It appears that one can try to explore the relation of different factors. And that this model can be applied to all systems that can be observed. Again through the apparent bodies in the apparent universe. Which is why I use the word apparent, not in the sense of obvious but in the sense of ‘that which appears’.
f. This kind of model can be used regardless of ones world view, it does not require separation of subject object, an assumption of division. It works under most world views. It works if you assume that all things are cojoined in multiple ways , it works if you assume that all things are comprised of separate players.
Why? Because it does not assume what the nature of the world or the apparent players in the world are. They could be spirits, they could be mind, they can be dead particles, they can be living particles. It doesn’t matter.
g If a player interacts in this way, is there an observable behavior/action/response/change/stay the same?

That is all. Observe and note.

although when it began to develop systems theory and gained some understanding of holistic viewpoints, it still (naturally) used its external, 3rd-person conceptual modelling.

Well again, I am thinking that it doesn’t really matter, when the terms of ‘double blind’ and the like are used it is about perceptual bias more than anything or communication.

From my POV the world view does not matter, I already assume that I am part and parcel of the world, I am interconnected to everything around me, I participate in a crazy world where energy is shared and effecting energy all around. There are observations that would indicate that is some strange way (currently modeled at the speed of light but again, based upon observation of the apparent world) I am interacting with stuff across the universe at extreme distance.

Electrons and other leptons get even stranger, in ways that I have a hard time getting to fit in my brain patterns.