Subjectivity and Science

[John Freestone]

Hi

I'm probably stepping into the lion's den with this one. Maybe it's been discussed here before. I would like to know what people make of the problem of subjectivity. I could have said 'consciousness', but I said 'subjectivity' to make the point that our experience of consciousness is subjective. While I accept that human consciousness has physical correlations in brain activity, I understand that science has so far failed to make sense of the subjective experience of it.

Let me put it another way: I had a conversation with my sister about 20 years ago when I was putting forward my ideas about spirituality and she was countering them from a scientific viewpoint. All that is needed to explain consciousness, the scientific argument goes, is that dirt and energy slosh about for billions of years until by chance some form of replicating system is formed, which we call life. Then, through random mutation and the interaction of these life systems with the environment, life becomes increasingly complex, and gains greater and greater means of monitoring and manipulating the environment, and the simple brain stem develops more and more systematic processing power until consciousness results, perhaps with the advent of abstraction, symbols, language. She put all that to me, and I understood that it could make perfect sense, no God required.

But, said I, how did one of those resulting consciousnesses become the centre of experience I call my consciousness? How did I get in here, talking to you out there? It is that question that keeps bringing me back to consider different views of the world from the materialist one.

I suspect that many scientific materialists don't consider the mystery of their own consciousness much from that absolute perspective. The more I consider it, meditate and read spiritual philosophies, the more sense a world view makes that includes Consciousness as fundamental, perhaps Cosmic, a priori, given. Scientists are happy to imagine a universe in which matter or energy-matter or space-time are fundamental, and indeed lap up the weirdness of all of that exploding out of a singularity behind which is no past (since time was created) or place (since space was). Yet I have heard no convincing explanation of consciousness that does not describe it in third-person, out-there, functional-material language, utterly missing the philosophical problem of its subjective quality - it is not an it, but an I.

Further doubt about science comes from the reasoning that all of the 'empirical evidence' that is so revered by scientists must eventually be made sense of in the individual consciousness, the nature of which is mostly ignored, perhaps because it is such a mystery. If the observer is not known, any theories about the observed stand on much shakier ground than scientists usually like to admit.

It seems to me, also, that 'scepticism' on this forum is often used to mean 'scientific materialist' (although no doubt some will have other ideas about what it means to them), and I wonder if actually scientific materialism is merely a philosophy - one might even say an atheistic religion, since it has tenets and assumptions, axioms - and rather than 'sceptic' (or skeptic) what is meant is 'believer'. This seems to allow 'sceptics' to assume that their position is natural, and dissenters are either stupid, mad, or at least must show evidence for their belief. No-one seems to expect materialists to prove that material is real, but all manner of 'religious' people (dare I call them mentalists?) are expected to prove that mind is real.

This brings me full circle. Stop for a moment and experience your consciousness. Now which is more absolutely undeniable, you (subject), or all that stuff out there you believe in?

[The Grave]

From above...."No-one seems to expect materialists to prove that material is real, but all manner of 'religious' people (dare I call them mentalists?) are expected to prove that mind is real."

Both are real... what a dumb stand point. If you write a word e.g. 'up', the information you convey is as real as mind or material.

The 'I' referred to is the illusion. We all have a capability to be many-minded, so your 'I' becomes subjective; it's the 'I' you have chosen from those available to you.

[andyandy]

From above...."No-one seems to expect materialists to prove that material is real, but all manner of 'religious' people (dare I call them mentalists?) are expected to prove that mind is real."

Both are real... what a dumb stand point. If you write a word e.g. 'up', the information you convey is as real as mind or material.

The 'I' referred to is the illusion. We all have a capability to be many-minded, so your 'I' becomes subjective; it's the 'I' you have chosen from those available to you.

you have definitive proof of materialism? I'm impressed....care to share it? :)

Solipsism is every bit as valid a position as materialism, more so even, in a truly empirical sense....all we can be truly sure of is our thoughts themselves....

still it's nice to live as though materialism is true...which it probably is ;)

[Roadtoad]

This is the kind of thing that gets into Zeno's Arrow territory, which can actually be kind of fun if you have a few hours to kill, and enough money for the beer and tacos.

Something to consider, John, is where you find the evidence, and what the results from said evidence are. Taking it from there, you can say "What's next?" with a bit more authority. Scientific Empiricism seems to work better in a mechanistic realm rather than a purely spriritual one. Seems to work better in real life, too.

Back to you, Chet.

[PixyMisa]

But, said I, how did one of those resulting consciousnesses become the centre of experience I call my consciousness? How did I get in here, talking to you out there? It is that question that keeps bringing me back to consider different views of the world from the materialist one.
You obviously weren't paying attention to what your sister said, or, for that matter, high-school biology. Consciousness is a function of the brain, of which you have one. You are that particular consciousness because it is generated by the brain you have in your head.

I suspect that many scientific materialists don't consider the mystery of their own consciousness much from that absolute perspective.The question, to a materialist, is trivial. No-one gives it serious attention because it doesn't deserve serious attention.

The more I consider it, meditate and read spiritual philosophies, the more sense a world view makes that includes Consciousness as fundamental, perhaps Cosmic, a priori, given.Mediation Considered Harmful.

Scientists are happy to imagine a universe in which matter or energy-matter or space-time are fundamental, and indeed lap up the weirdness of all of that exploding out of a singularity behind which is no past (since time was created) or place (since space was).
The universe behaves, in every observable way, as though it is made up of matter. Consciousness behaves, in every observable way, as though it is a result of brain function.

Yet I have heard no convincing explanation of consciousness that does not describe it in third-person, out-there, functional-material language, utterly missing the philosophical problem of its subjective quality - it is not an it, but an I.How is this a problem?

Further doubt about science comes from the reasoning that all of the 'empirical evidence' that is so revered by scientists must eventually be made sense of in the individual consciousness, the nature of which is mostly ignored, perhaps because it is such a mystery. If the observer is not known, any theories about the observed stand on much shakier ground than scientists usually like to admit.Not even slightly true.

Science in essence consists of testable predictions. The observer is irrelevant. In these circumstances, this will happen. Who or what you are doesn't matter. Repeat the experiment, and you will get the same results.

Now, if this didn't work, that would say something; in this sense, science is a meta-experiment into the fundamental nature of reality. But it does work. Science is phenomenally successful, where religion and mysticism have utterly failed to produce anything, ever.

It seems to me, also, that 'scepticism' on this forum is often used to mean 'scientific materialist' (although no doubt some will have other ideas about what it means to them), and I wonder if actually scientific materialism is merely a philosophyYes, it is a philosophy.

However, it happens to work.

one might even say an atheistic religion, since it has tenets and assumptions, axioms - and rather than 'sceptic' (or skeptic) what is meant is 'believer'.It is clearly, however, not a religion of any sort, both because it is taken as an assumption and not as absolute truth, and because it is used as the foundation for a system of testable and practically useful explanations.

This seems to allow 'sceptics' to assume that their position is natural, and dissenters are either stupid, mad, or at least must show evidence for their belief.Exactly.

Because science always works, regardless of an individual's personal beliefs, and religion and mysticism never work, again regardless of an individual's personal beliefs, science has special standing.

No-one seems to expect materialists to prove that material is real, but all manner of 'religious' people (dare I call them mentalists?) are expected to prove that mind is real.We don't need to prove that materialism is real, but we have demonstrated that the universe acts as though materialism were real. Or does your computer work by Tantric incantation?

This brings me full circle. Stop for a moment and experience your consciousness. Now which is more absolutely undeniable, you (subject), or all that stuff out there you believe in?All that stuff out there.

I was born. I will die. The universe remains.

And if I pretend that it is consciousness and not matter that is fundamental, I will die just that much sooner.

[Complexity]

Another one.

John, this got tedious a long time a go.

Go off and read better books.

[plumjam]

Hi

I'm probably stepping into the lion's den with this one. Maybe it's been discussed here before. I would like to know what people make of the problem of subjectivity. I could have said 'consciousness', but I said 'subjectivity' to make the point that our experience of consciousness is subjective. While I accept that human consciousness has physical correlations in brain activity, I understand that science has so far failed to make sense of the subjective experience of it.

Let me put it another way: I had a conversation with my sister about 20 years ago when I was putting forward my ideas about spirituality and she was countering them from a scientific viewpoint. All that is needed to explain consciousness, the scientific argument goes, is that dirt and energy slosh about for billions of years until by chance some form of replicating system is formed, which we call life. Then, through random mutation and the interaction of these life systems with the environment, life becomes increasingly complex, and gains greater and greater means of monitoring and manipulating the environment, and the simple brain stem develops more and more systematic processing power until consciousness results, perhaps with the advent of abstraction, symbols, language. She put all that to me, and I understood that it could make perfect sense, no God required.

But, said I, how did one of those resulting consciousnesses become the centre of experience I call my consciousness? How did I get in here, talking to you out there? It is that question that keeps bringing me back to consider different views of the world from the materialist one.

I suspect that many scientific materialists don't consider the mystery of their own consciousness much from that absolute perspective. The more I consider it, meditate and read spiritual philosophies, the more sense a world view makes that includes Consciousness as fundamental, perhaps Cosmic, a priori, given. Scientists are happy to imagine a universe in which matter or energy-matter or space-time are fundamental, and indeed lap up the weirdness of all of that exploding out of a singularity behind which is no past (since time was created) or place (since space was). Yet I have heard no convincing explanation of consciousness that does not describe it in third-person, out-there, functional-material language, utterly missing the philosophical problem of its subjective quality - it is not an it, but an I.

Further doubt about science comes from the reasoning that all of the 'empirical evidence' that is so revered by scientists must eventually be made sense of in the individual consciousness, the nature of which is mostly ignored, perhaps because it is such a mystery. If the observer is not known, any theories about the observed stand on much shakier ground than scientists usually like to admit.

It seems to me, also, that 'scepticism' on this forum is often used to mean 'scientific materialist' (although no doubt some will have other ideas about what it means to them), and I wonder if actually scientific materialism is merely a philosophy - one might even say an atheistic religion, since it has tenets and assumptions, axioms - and rather than 'sceptic' (or skeptic) what is meant is 'believer'. This seems to allow 'sceptics' to assume that their position is natural, and dissenters are either stupid, mad, or at least must show evidence for their belief. No-one seems to expect materialists to prove that material is real, but all manner of 'religious' people (dare I call them mentalists?) are expected to prove that mind is real.

This brings me full circle. Stop for a moment and experience your consciousness. Now which is more absolutely undeniable, you (subject), or all that stuff out there you believe in?

Hi John, that's an excellent post. Nominated.
I'm looking forward to seeing the 'quality' of responses you'll get.

A lot will be attacking. Don't mind them, there are some fools here.
I hope you'll stick around, it'll make for more interesting debate.

[UnrepentantSinner]

All that is needed to explain consciousness, the scientific argument goes, is that dirt and energy slosh about for billions of years until by chance some form of replicating system is formed, which we call life. Then, through random mutation and the interaction of these life systems with the environment, life becomes increasingly complex, and gains greater and greater means of monitoring and manipulating the environment, and the simple brain stem develops more and more systematic processing power until consciousness results, perhaps with the advent of abstraction, symbols, language. She put all that to me, and I understood that it could make perfect sense, no God required.

That's not the scientific argument. That's a straw man version of it.

That said, we have evidence of even the most simple beings exhibiting awareness of their surroundings (else how could scallops escape from starfish). We also have massive amounts of evidence that chordates eventually developed into vertebrates, that some of those vertebrates moved onto the land and developed new regions on their brains. The mammalian brain is very similiar in structure throughout the class. This is true for humans though we tend to have more connections.

Where's the problem for evolution in explaining the human mind then?

[Mobyseven]

Solipsism is every bit as valid a position as materialism, more so even, in a truly empirical sense....all we can be truly sure of is our thoughts themselves....

One cannot even be sure that they exist, if we're going to be strict about this. The only rational position is 'thoughts exist'. Of course, such reductionism is just plain silly when you get down to it - if reality is but an illusion, it remains a very persistent and compelling illusion, and it at least seems to be purely materialistic.

Perhaps it isn't real, but until the time I wake up in a different universe (or disappear into a whisp of thoughts and emotions) I might as well study the illusion, and the illusion seems to follow predictable materialistic rules. After all, it's the only illusion that my illusiory sense of self has even imagined living in.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If this thread is going to take reductionism to its logical or illogical conclusion, can anyone either show me some sort of evidence for a soul existing, or give me a quantifiable measurment of brain activity that differentiates between a soul and brain activity in, say, a human, mongoose, carp or scallop?

One of the reasons I am a weak atheist is that I just don't buy that humans have something, pnumia, ghost, soul, whatever you want to call it, that exists beyond our physical body. If there is a deity out there somewhere and when I die it's game over, why should I care about the will, whims or caprice of said deity?

[joobz]

One cannot even be sure that they exist, if we're going to be strict about this. The only rational position is 'thoughts exist'. Of course, such reductionism is just plain silly when you get down to it - if reality is but an illusion, it remains a very persistent and compelling illusion, and it at least seems to be purely materialistic.

Perhaps it isn't real, but until the time I wake up in a different universe (or disappear into a whisp of thoughts and emotions) I might as well study the illusion, and the illusion seems to follow predictable materialistic rules. After all, it's the only illusion that my illusiory sense of self has even imagined living in.
This is the exact position I take. I find it amusing that the same arguments against materialism with the claim that it can never explain consiousness. It's too bad that science keeps learning more about the organic nature of our consiousness. The whole philosophical question posed in the OP is likely to be found as meaningless as asking what is north of the north pole.

[hammegk]

One cannot even be sure that they exist, if we're going to be strict about this. The only rational position is 'thoughts exist'.
And here I thought we'd never agree on anything! :)


Of course, such reductionism is just plain silly when you get down to it - if reality is but an illusion, it remains a very persistent and compelling illusion, and it at least seems to be purely materialistic.
Er, silly? Not if one chooses to work within the limits imposed by the illusion. What other choice is also rational?

Perhaps it isn't real, but until the time I wake up in a different universe (or disappear into a whisp of thoughts and emotions) I might as well study the illusion, and the illusion seems to follow predictable materialistic rules. After all, it's the only illusion that my illusiory sense of self has even imagined living in.
There. See how easy it is?

Considering the utiility of scientific materialism, we all await the answer. A few hundred years isn't even an eyeblink in time. We have reached the technological stage where a few survivors of the 6,000,000,000 will be back in the stone age should any bad system errors occur, courtesy of man, or nature.

What will the (possible surviving with lifestyles unchanged) Bushmen, a few rainforest tribes, some Andean indians, and other aborigines here and there think of the usefulness of scientific materialism? :confused:

[Darat]

...snip...

Solipsism is every bit as valid a position as materialism, more so even, in a truly empirical sense....all we can be truly sure of is our thoughts themselves....

...snip...

Nope the solipsist is in the same boat as everyone else, we cannot be anymore sure "of our thoughts" than we can be sure of anything else. In other words the solipsist has no way of knowing whether they are the solipsist or not.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Solipsism is every bit as valid a position as materialism, more so even, in a truly empirical sense....all we can be truly sure of is our thoughts themselves....
But then how is the consistency of the oak tree in my yard maintained between the times that I am thinking about it?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

One cannot even be sure that they exist, if we're going to be strict about this. The only rational position is 'thoughts exist'.
But then how is the consistency of the elm tree in my yard maintained between the times that thoughts exist about it?

~~ Paul

[andyandy]

Nope the solipsist is in the same boat as everyone else, we cannot be anymore sure "of our thoughts" than we can be sure of anything else. In other words the solipsist has no way of knowing whether they are the solipsist or not.

Surely i can be more sure of my thoughts than i can be of anything that exists outside myself? For anything that i think exists outside myself requires that the stimulus is correctly received and interpreted, whereas at least with my thoughts, that external step is not required.....

But then how is the consistency of the oak tree in my yard maintained between the times that I am thinking about it?

~~ Paul

....doesn't this fit into the unsureness of anything outside the self? The oak tree may not exist - that which exists is my thoughts about it....and they don't need to be consistent over time....

[joobz]

But then how is the consistency of the oak tree in my yard maintained between the times that I am thinking about it?

~~ Paul

But then how is the consistency of the elm tree in my yard maintained between the times that thoughts exist about it?

~~ Paul
But then how is the consistency of the species of the tree you posts maintained...... Oh wait.:D

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hi

I'm probably stepping into the lion's den with this one. Maybe it's been discussed here before. I would like to know what people make of the problem of subjectivity. I could have said 'consciousness', but I said 'subjectivity' to make the point that our experience of consciousness is subjective. While I accept that human consciousness has physical correlations in brain activity, I understand that science has so far failed to make sense of the subjective experience of it.



Hi.

What problem of subjectivity?

Science has so far failed to make sense of 'subjectivity' because it isn't properly speaking a scientific problem. It is a thought problem, so belongs to philosophy of mind.

I'm not sure why there is a problem, though. There is simply one observer of the phenomena. The issue of what constitutes the 'feeling of consciousness' or the 'feeling of anything' -- well, that is just another thought problem. And it probably has the simplest of solutions, so simple that it was right in front of us all the time. 'Feelings' are motivational states and/or tags. Think about what purpose they serve -- they give us information about what is 'good' and 'bad' and 'delightful' and 'boring', etc., etc. They tell us what to spend our time on and what to forget. They have to be something to serve that purpose. We just happen to experience them as 'feelings'.

Where's the problem?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

....doesn't this fit into the unsureness of anything outside the self? The oak tree may not exist - that which exists is my thoughts about it....and they don't need to be consistent over time....
But they are! How? It is not your conscious thought that keeps the tree consistent from one observation to the next. There must be something else.

~~ Paul

[andyandy]

But they are! How? It is not your conscious thought that keeps the tree consistent from one observation to the next. There must be something else.

~~ Paul

the matrix? ;)

i agree that we can find evidence to support materialism, and indeed i think there is a material world, and live as though there is.....but if i was asked as to which position i was more sure about - either solipsism or materialism, then i would have to conclude the former - the mind is the only thing i know exists....and even this i'm not entirely sure of ;)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

But, said I, how did one of those resulting consciousnesses become the centre of experience I call my consciousness?

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but you seem to imply that there could be two different answers to the questions:

1. Which person am I?

2. Which person is it whose experiences I experience ( whose eyes I see with, ears I hear with, fingers I touch with, and so on)?


Unless there are criteria by which the answers can be made independent of each other, the question makes no sense.

Dualism is no help to you: if you are puzzled to say how you came to have your body rather than someone else's, you have the same difficulty with the question how you came to have your mind ( spirit, soul, personality or whatever) rather than the next chap's.

[Mobyseven]

But then how is the consistency of the elm tree in my yard maintained between the times that thoughts exist about it?

~~ Paul

Who says that it is? If there is no 'you', and the sense of identity currently posting is no more than the chance coming together of a pattern of thoughts and emotions, then your memories of what the elm tree was like in the past are not actually 'your' memories. It could just as well as been a person who was confused as to what species of tree they have in their backyard - every time 'they' remember checking, it switches between 'oak' and 'elm'! ;)

Understand that I'm not actually advocating this position - after all, what would it even mean to say that this is not the real world that I (or 'I') am living in now? It certainly seems to be the real world, and I have yet to see anything that would make me doubt such a thing. There is limited value, in my opinion, to applying reductionism to such an extreme - the ultimate conclusion of such reductionism is necessary doubt of one's own existence, and such a scenario doesn't really teach anyone anything about the world (it does, however, keep metaphysicists in tenure :p). Maybe it is all an illusion, but to treat it as such is counter-productive. At least, I imagine it is. ;)

[John Freestone]

I'm surprised so few of you seem to have a clue what the question was. Maybe I'm wiser than I thought (compared with this particular population - oooh yes I can do both science and arrogance me).

I wondered how many words I would read before I was insulted, having read a few other threads round here. Six is the answer, when The Grave said "what a dumb stand point". 'Standpoint' is one word, BTW. Matter and mind are 'both real', you say. OK. You're confident. Not only that, but meaning is real, as when I write the word 'up'. Well, 'up' might have a useful meaning in a warehouse, but the universe, for example, doesn't seem to have an up. Hence simple meanings are ok for warehouse workers, not cosmologists or philosophers.

Oh we love this, don't we? This is what we really come to discuss things for: gradual increase in temperature and deeper entrenchment in our separate views towards flame war, whereupon we're all dumped in the relevant archive, having proved that we're clever and everyone else is stupid. At least we've had a good time taking part in an utterly useless battle of the selfish memes.

I think this phenomenon is actually more interesting than my original question. Maybe "Complexity" has an opinion on it Another one.
John, this got tedious a long time a go.
Go off and read better books.Simplicity, I could suggest that you go off and take part in discussions that don't bore you so much that you have to say how bored you are and insult the author (with whom you have not exchanged a word before) by suggesting he read different books (when you don't know which books he's read). I think all you did there was waste everyone's time demonstrating your irrational anger.

Why? Why are there so many angry, insulting people round here, or have I just read too few threads to get an objective view?

And why are so many of you so incredibly quick to make up your minds about stuff, and answer questions no-one asked. I didn't say we have immortal souls. Several of you go from "Hmmm. this is weird...tree falls in forest...?" to "Don't start preaching your God rubbish at me it's all garbage" before you actually understand anything you've read.

PixiMisa (The Illuminator) replies that there is no mystery to my subjective consciousness, since I have a body and a brain (and, incidentally, can't resist insulting me by saying that I didn't listen to the materialist argument of my sister or my high school biology lessons). I can guarantee you'll find that I did listen, and you didn't understand the question.

At least Ichneumonwasp clarifies the issue:What problem of subjectivity?

Science has so far failed to make sense of 'subjectivity' because it isn't properly speaking a scientific problem. It is a thought problem, so belongs to philosophy of mind.

I'm not sure why there is a problem, though. ...snip...Yes, philosophy. This is the philosophy board. This is the syndrome: because it isn't a scientific problem, you can't see the problem anymore, and go back to describing the evolutionary benefits of emotion, things already inside the box.

PixyMisa demonstrates the same lack of imagination The question, to a materialist, is trivial. No-one gives it serious attention because it doesn't deserve serious attention.Yes to the first part. PixyMisa is more sure of the material world out there than his or her apprehension of it, which I find odd. Apparently The Grave seriously doubts his or her existence, so it gets worse. If the CIA were flashing lights in our eyes it couldn't be a better cover-up. The Pixy goes on:Mediation Considered Harmful.So we'll just have to slug it out then. Ok, easy typo, sorry. The fact that meditation might be considered harmful (and you don't say by whom) strikes me as poor reason to ignore it with Three Word Headlines. Meditation is cited in a wide range of traditions as a tool for helping us understand the nature of consciousness. Since many of us here at least have agreed that our experience is subjective, and therefore not within the purview of science, which always deals with objective measurements, I practise it in the hope of shedding some light on what I consider 'problems' or 'mysteries' or 'questions' about my subjective consciousness and existence. Discussion is pretty ineffectual.

Oh but it is sooo enjoyable arguing with strangers. I leave you with another of pixi's gems (speaking as a scientist, presumably): "The observer is irrelevant." Oh God, my sides! High skool rocks. I hope there is a heaven; Einstein will wet himself.

Plumjam, thanks for the encouragement. It made a difference, you posting that. I don't much like myself round here. Just feels like it's meant to be a battle ground and you either fight or flee. I guess that's maybe part of the syndrome.

[PixyMisa]

PixiMisa (The Illuminator)
Just to clarify that, "Illuminator" is just the default label attached to users with, I guess, between 3000 and 4000 posts. It's not a title I chose for myself.

replies that there is no mystery to my subjective consciousness, since I have a body and a brain (and, incidentally, can't resist insulting me by saying that I didn't listen to the materialist argument of my sister or my high school biology lessons). I can guarantee you'll find that I did listen, and you didn't understand the question.No, I understood the question just fine. It's just that, as I said, under materialism it's a trivial question.

Why do I experience my consciousness and not others'? Under materialism, and from a truly immense body of evidence gathered over thousands of years, consciousness is brain function. You have a brain, so you experience the consciousness generated by that brain. Or rather, your experiences are the consciousness generated by that brain.

The materialist position is, of course, an assumption, and to an honest scientist it's a tentative but essential one. As I said, science is in some sense a meta-experiment into the fundamental nature of reality: Assume materialism (or at least naturalism) and then see how far you can get explaining things.

And we haven't found any limits yet.

At least Ichneumonwasp clarifies the issue:Yes, philosophy. This is the philosophy board. This is the syndrome: because it isn't a scientific problem, you can't see the problem anymore, and go back to describing the evolutionary benefits of emotion, things already inside the box.Philosophy uninformed by fact is mere opinion. If you want to talk about what is rather than what might be, you must observe the world and take it into account - which is precisely what science does.

PixyMisa demonstrates the same lack of imaginationNot true; rather, it's a question I've considered for more than 25 years, and I didn't lay out every single step along the way, just the conclusion.

PixyMisa is more sure of the material world out there than his or her apprehension of it, which I find odd.It's a natural conclusion.

Other people clearly possess conscious minds equivalent to my own. I've seen people born, with their minds largely blank. I've seen people die. Everyone has seen this. It always happens, and it's always the same. You're born, you live, you learn, and you die. And no-one and nothing ever comes back.

And that those conscious minds are generated by brains is indisputable. (Not deductively proven; merely indisputable.) No brain, no mind. Poke the brain with electrodes, drown it in alcohol, jolt it with caffeine, deprive it of sleep, gnaw at it with disease, slice it and dice it in unfortunate accidents or life-saving surgery, tease it with any of a thousand alkaloids and opioids, and consciousness changes. Change the brain and consciousness changes.

If consciousness is fundamental, why is its every aspect utterly dependent upon matter?

So we'll just have to slug it out then. Ok, easy typo, sorry.
Yeah, I saw that, but only after the editing period was over.

The fact that meditation might be considered harmful (and you don't say by whom)Me, in this case.

strikes me as poor reason to ignore it with Three Word Headlines.It's a computer science joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful).

Meditation is cited in a wide range of traditions as a tool for helping us understand the nature of consciousness.Yes. And it doesn't work.

Since many of us here at least have agreed that our experience is subjective, and therefore not within the purview of science, which always deals with objective measurements, I practise it in the hope of shedding some light on what I consider 'problems' or 'mysteries' or 'questions' about my subjective consciousness and existence. Discussion is pretty ineffectual.I disagree with every part of this. The subjective, as we are shown over and over again, is merely a subset of the objective. All you are is the interaction of molecules. We know that. So, necessarily, given that your subjective experience is generated by objectively observable events, the subjective is fully explicable in terms of the objective.

That doesn't mean we know the entire answer, not just yet. It does mean that there is no necessity to bring anything else to the table.

Oh but it is sooo enjoyable arguing with strangers. I leave you with another of pixi's gems (speaking as a scientist, presumably): "The observer is irrelevant." Oh God, my sides! High skool rocks. I hope there is a heaven; Einstein will wet himself.The observer is irrelevant. Relativity works exactly the same whether you are there to make the measurement or not, and whether you believe in it or not. When a discussion of Relativity refers to the observer, what matters is the observer's location and motion and nothing else.

[Mobyseven]

Ugh. Another 'philosopher'. "Philosophy is so deep! I'm so deep you can't even understand me! Look at how deep I am! LOOK AT MY DEEPNESS, DAMMIT!"

[JoeEllison]

Ugh. Another 'philosopher'. "Philosophy is so deep! I'm so deep you can't even understand me! Look at how deep I am! LOOK AT MY DEEPNESS, DAMMIT!"

I think the only people who buy into this sort of "philosophy" are high on drugs. It sounds like the sort of thing that seems really deep and meaningful at 3 AM when you're drunk or stoned, but doesn't mean much at all the next morning. :cool:

[joobz]

I think the only people who buy into this sort of "philosophy" are high on drugs. It sounds like the sort of thing that seems really deep and meaningful at 3 AM when you're drunk or stoned, but doesn't mean much at all the next morning. :cool:
It's rather outdated school of thought. Kind of meaningless to question the utility of science and materialism with people over the INTERNET while ON A COMPUTER.

[JoeEllison]

It's rather outdated school of thought. Kind of meaningless to question the utility of science and materialism with people over the INTERNET while ON A COMPUTER.
Well, yeah, but using actual logic isn't as "deep" as the sort of "philosophy" that most people seem to engage in.

To me, the whole "what if..." philosophical question followed by some attack on science and materialism? My response is that it just doesn't really go anywhere. If you don't have to provide evidence, if you don't even believe in evidence, that's pretty much the end of anything you can say, isn't it? Your little "what if..." question becomes stupid and useless by your own twisted logic, because if everything is completely subjective, nothing can ever be proven or disproved, and anything is possible and equally likely... then frankly, any claim you make past that point makes you a moron and a hypocrite.

Rejecting the idea of evidence doesn't mean that you can claim whatever religion or belief you want. It means you can't claim anything. So, if John Freestone really rejects the idea of evidence, he should really consider shutting up. Otherwise, he's making a claim that he doesn't believe he's allowed to make at all.

[joobz]

Rejecting the idea of evidence doesn't mean that you can claim whatever religion or belief you want. It means you can't claim anything.
Quoted for truth. Nicely said.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think the only people who buy into this sort of "philosophy" are high on drugs. It sounds like the sort of thing that seems really deep and meaningful at 3 AM when you're drunk or stoned, but doesn't mean much at all the next morning. :cool:

I was sober when I read the OP and am drunk at (almost, but what is time, other than a construct to shackle us) 11pm and JF's meanderings made as little sense to me then as they do now. I don't want to dismiss all philosphy or abstract thought was worthless since I find value in many gedankenubungens, but trying to juxtapose the abstract with the material is a waste of time.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a noise? Of course it does you navel gazing blowhards! It's the same with a beam of sunlight touching a blade of grass being green even if no one is there to see it. When the F did koans, ignorant of physics as they are, become considered scientific?

[Tumblehome]

I'm probably stepping into the lion's den with this one.


Yep. :)


I understand that science has so far failed to make sense of the subjective experience of it.


Wrong. Science has made its own sense of it. You just choose not to accept it.

Science recognizes that my consciousness is a function of my brain, and that because my experiences are limited and different than everyone else's, it is subjective and, therefore, biased. If we're to understand the Universe, we can't rely on my or anyone else's biased view. Acknowledging the bias in our consciousness is precisely why we have the objective discipline of science to filter out that bias.


But, said I, how did one of those resulting consciousnesses become the centre of experience I call my consciousness? How did I get in here, talking to you out there? It is that question that keeps bringing me back to consider different views of the world from the materialist one.


Well, you see, your mother and father loved each other in a very special way, and...then you were born. You became a functioning human being which necessarily includes a brain capable of consciousness. It's not like your consciousness was already there, waiting for you, as you seem to want. It was the result of a purely biological process that didn't exist until you were born.


I suspect that many scientific materialists don't consider the mystery of their own consciousness much from that absolute perspective.


I'm sure they consider their own consciousness, but not the "mystery" of it, because there's nothing to suggest it's mysterious. What is it about consciousness that means it has to be mystical?


The more I consider it, meditate and read spiritual philosophies, the more sense a world view makes that includes Consciousness as fundamental, perhaps Cosmic, a priori, given.


Spiritual philosophies that see consciousness as inevitable take only the warm and fuzzy aspect of consciousness and put it on a pedestal. They don't acknowledge that human consciousness also creates war, child rape, ingenious methods of torture, etc., etc. In other words, they're biased. They're a perfect example of why we can't depend on subjectivity to explain the Universe.


Scientists are happy to imagine a universe in which matter or energy-matter or space-time are fundamental...


Of course. This Universe wouldn't exist if that weren't so.


...and indeed lap up the weirdness of all of that exploding out of a singularity behind which is no past (since time was created) or place (since space was). Yet I have heard no convincing explanation of consciousness that does not describe it in third-person, out-there, functional-material language, utterly missing the philosophical problem of its subjective quality - it is not an it, but an I.


Yes, science laps up weirdness--whenever it's supported by evidence. When weirdness, or normalcy, or anything, isn't supported, it's not accepted.

Your consciousness is an "I" only to you, not to anyone else.


Further doubt about science comes from the reasoning that all of the 'empirical evidence' that is so revered by scientists must eventually be made sense of in the individual consciousness, the nature of which is mostly ignored, perhaps because it is such a mystery. If the observer is not known, any theories about the observed stand on much shakier ground than scientists usually like to admit.


Yes, evidence is interpreted by the individual consciousness, and for that reason, it's accepted only if it passes a bias filter.

Again, the nature of the individual conscience is not ignored; science's intrpretation of it is right there in front of your eyes. The fact that you don't accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And again again, there's no mystery to it except for those who feel the need to attach a biased, unsupported metaphysical significance to it.


It seems to me, also, that 'scepticism' on this forum is often used to mean 'scientific materialist' (although no doubt some will have other ideas about what it means to them), and I wonder if actually scientific materialism is merely a philosophy - one might even say an atheistic religion, since it has tenets and assumptions, axioms - and rather than 'sceptic' (or skeptic) what is meant is 'believer'.


Is it a philosophy to believe that the next time I drop a ball, it will fall to the ground? Or is it a conclusion reached by a system of logical deduction that applies to everyone on Earth, regardless of their philosophical outlook?


This seems to allow 'sceptics' to assume that their position is natural...


It certainly isn't supernatural.


...and dissenters are either stupid, mad, or at least must show evidence for their belief.


Do you expect their beliefs to be accepted just on their say-so?


...all manner of 'religious' people (dare I call them mentalists?) are expected to prove that mind is real.


No, they're expected to prove their versions of the mind are real, as opposed to the official, logical version.


This brings me full circle. Stop for a moment and experience your consciousness. Now which is more absolutely undeniable, you (subject), or all that stuff out there you believe in?


Not sure what you mean, but I'll take a stab. As far as I know, I exist. My beliefs will have to change if the evidence warrants it. As a minor example, I didn't like the idea of Pluto being exlcuded as a planet, but when I looked at the reasons for it, I had to agree it was the right thing to do.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Hi John, that's an excellent post. Nominated.
I'm looking forward to seeing the 'quality' of responses you'll get.

A lot will be attacking. Don't mind them, there are some fools here.
I hope you'll stick around, it'll make for more interesting debate.

Ah. So we have another jejune "mystery of consciousness" poster and thread do we?

Thus I refute Berkeley

[John Freestone]

Thanks. I think there's a lot of strength in most of these arguments within their materialist religious dogma. They have an internal logic. Like Newtonian Physics has within certain limits. What I'm trying to suggest is that philosophy is an attempt (ok, perhaps stupid and fruitless, but attractive to some) to try to approach truth. Science is one method of doing that, but the problems with the 'bias filter' conception of science are:
1) All of it depends on accepting doubtful knowledge. I realise that most of you are aware of this and I'm not disputing that over time science can establish reasonable faith in certain propositions. What I am saying, from a philosophical point of view, is that this is faith, since all scientific discoveries are 'best guesses'. The filter is based on a human invention, confidence (the mathematical variety, I mean, the basis of statistics). If something is 'statistically significant' it is so with reference to some purely arbitrarily chosen confidence quotient. So what this means is that the scientist says, "That'll do, I'll take that as best-guess-reality". Now that's fine, except that it is then transmuted by semi-conscious people into "established fact", and we get the kind of badgering here towards anyone who QUESTIONS its philosophical basis: the facts are in; your conscious experience is evolutionarily useful froth on a material sea of patterned accident.

2) Objective observations might not be filtered through a bias filter so much as distorted by the objectifying, pattern-making habit of our minds (which is why there is so much made of the possible potential of altered states of awareness to open the 'doors of perception' to more truthful apperception of reality, rather than merely being hallucinatory error). Of course, to a dedicated, pious materialist, the problem is solved by default; to a philosopher it is not. Even this I put as "might not be..." because I am agnostic, exploring reason and experience in search of undeniable truth. Those of you who say that materialism is undeniable have failed to realise that you have no way of knowing whether you are dreaming that belief.

The philosopher, perhaps wrongly, perhaps stupidly, recognises that the 'established fact' you lot are so sure of is not fact, but faith, and asks again "What do I actually know?" Andyandy has enough freedom of thought to say that thought is more reliable than the objects being thought about. Those who meditate report that even thoughts can be observed as objects, separate from the witness, the "I" thinking them. Of course, traditionally some of them come to a similar conclusion (or rather, they assert, they aquire direct knowledge) as some of you have been saying here - that the self is utterly illusory (it is one of the tenets of Buddhism). However, it is a very different kind of understanding than what many of you seem to be saying, that facts are just observed, filtered through the magic bias filter of scientific experimentation, appreciated by the clear view of your eyes.

I am not denying the functional usefulness of science and technology, or external reality. I am reminding us that what we observe has already had a cognitive pattern imposed on it by our minds: we call it a chair and sit on it, even though in a natural sense there is no such thing as a chair; 'chair' is an ideal, and you can do the thought experiment of constructing less and less chair-like chairs and find a continuum from 'not-chair' to 'chair' and the dividing line between the two is down to your personal taste in how comfortable you like to be when you sit down. In a similar way, whatever science 'measures' might have already been projected, as it were, constructed, rather than observed in the raw. Am I mistaken in stating that this is one of the uncomfortable discoveries of science itself, that observer and observed cannot be separated (at least in certain realms or dimensions)? Does it not lead many cosmologists and particle physicists to comment on the kind of 'mystery' I am alluding to?

I'm afraid my ability to argue this point is poor because I haven't enough knowledge of these areas, but did I dream Chaos and QM, particles popping in and out of existence, wave-particle confusions... Is it Heisenberg who would have a good laugh about the observer being irrelevant.

Someone summed it up by saying that science has not found any limit. Newton might have said the same about his clockwork universe.

My question was probably rather naive and stupid. Forget it if you like. I just find it stimulating to my curiosity to note that there have been approximately 13 billion human brains through history, but only one of them is supposed to be the 'cause' of 'me'. Annother way of looking at it is to imagine all that mechanistic evolution taking place and questioning whether my hallucinatory perception of a self was at all necessary. Being one of those several billions for a fleeting lifetime is like crawling inside the cosmos somehow, unnecessarily putting it on as a skin. It feels significant and strange to exist or have the dream of existing as a person. I mean, we might repeat the process with AI robots, but if we suddenly found ourselves embodied in one, we'd be dim not to wonder why. And if we did, someone would say "It's obvious, dimwit: you have a frame and a CPU, don't you?"

[Irony]

Thanks. I think there's a lot of strength in most of these arguments within their materialist religious dogma.

If your so interested in this subject, then perhaps you could refrain from hurling insults between spats of patting yourself on the back and actually listen to what others here have said about it.

[Darat]

Surely i can be more sure of my thoughts than i can be of anything that exists outside myself? For anything that i think exists outside myself requires that the stimulus is correctly received and interpreted, whereas at least with my thoughts, that external step is not required.....

...snip...

That's only true after you've made the assumption that you are sure of your thoughts. There is just no way that you can tell if you are the solipsist or just a creation of the solipsist in solipsist metaphysics.

[CFLarsen]

But they are! How? It is not your conscious thought that keeps the tree consistent from one observation to the next. There must be something else.

Don't worry about your bleedin' trees, man!

When you're not thinking about them, I will. Promise!

[JoeEllison]

I'm afraid my ability to argue this point is poor because I haven't enough knowledge of these areas.

The real problem, I think, is that you don't actually have a valid or useful point. You'd like to have one, I'm sure. Since you don't, you're going to keep hitting frustrating roadblocks. The embrace of subjectivity that you seem to espouse is not a path to greater knowledge, but a rejection of the possibility of any knowledge. It is a complete dead end.

Did you actually read and internalize any of the criticisms of your position?

[NeilC]

That's only true after you've made the assumption that you are sure of your thoughts. There is just no way that you can tell if you are the solipsist or just a creation of the solipsist in solipsist metaphysics.

What do you mean by "sure of your thoughts"? Sure they exist or sure that because they exist you must also exist?

[Darat]

I'm assuming that andyandy is using it as in "I'm sure these thoughts are mine".

[fls]

Thanks. I think there's a lot of strength in most of these arguments within their materialist religious dogma. They have an internal logic. Like Newtonian Physics has within certain limits. What I'm trying to suggest is that philosophy is an attempt (ok, perhaps stupid and fruitless, but attractive to some) to try to approach truth. Science is one method of doing that, but the problems with the 'bias filter' conception of science are:
1) All of it depends on accepting doubtful knowledge. I realise that most of you are aware of this and I'm not disputing that over time science can establish reasonable faith in certain propositions. What I am saying, from a philosophical point of view, is that this is faith, since all scientific discoveries are 'best guesses'. The filter is based on a human invention, confidence (the mathematical variety, I mean, the basis of statistics). If something is 'statistically significant' it is so with reference to some purely arbitrarily chosen confidence quotient. So what this means is that the scientist says, "That'll do, I'll take that as best-guess-reality". Now that's fine, except that it is then transmuted by semi-conscious people into "established fact", and we get the kind of badgering here towards anyone who QUESTIONS its philosophical basis: the facts are in; your conscious experience is evolutionarily useful froth on a material sea of patterned accident.

'Statistically significant' had its birth in the 1920's - long after the laws governing physical processes had been elucidated. I don't think you can hold it to blame.

Try thinking of 'established fact' as 'that list of things which must be wrong in order for my idea to be wrong', instead.

2) Objective observations might not be filtered through a bias filter so much as distorted by the objectifying, pattern-making habit of our minds (which is why there is so much made of the possible potential of altered states of awareness to open the 'doors of perception' to more truthful apperception of reality, rather than merely being hallucinatory error). Of course, to a dedicated, pious materialist, the problem is solved by default; to a philosopher it is not. Even this I put as "might not be..." because I am agnostic, exploring reason and experience in search of undeniable truth. Those of you who say that materialism is undeniable have failed to realise that you have no way of knowing whether you are dreaming that belief.

The philosopher, perhaps wrongly, perhaps stupidly, recognises that the 'established fact' you lot are so sure of is not fact, but faith, and asks again "What do I actually know?" Andyandy has enough freedom of thought to say that thought is more reliable than the objects being thought about. Those who meditate report that even thoughts can be observed as objects, separate from the witness, the "I" thinking them. Of course, traditionally some of them come to a similar conclusion (or rather, they assert, they aquire direct knowledge) as some of you have been saying here - that the self is utterly illusory (it is one of the tenets of Buddhism). However, it is a very different kind of understanding than what many of you seem to be saying, that facts are just observed, filtered through the magic bias filter of scientific experimentation, appreciated by the clear view of your eyes.

Instead of patting yourself on the back for having these thoughts, recognize that Science has had these thoughts as well. While Philosophy is stuck on the navel-gazing part of the process, Science has moved on to the 'taking all that into consideration....' part of the process.

I am not denying the functional usefulness of science and technology, or external reality. I am reminding us that what we observe has already had a cognitive pattern imposed on it by our minds: we call it a chair and sit on it, even though in a natural sense there is no such thing as a chair; 'chair' is an ideal, and you can do the thought experiment of constructing less and less chair-like chairs and find a continuum from 'not-chair' to 'chair' and the dividing line between the two is down to your personal taste in how comfortable you like to be when you sit down. In a similar way, whatever science 'measures' might have already been projected, as it were, constructed, rather than observed in the raw. Am I mistaken in stating that this is one of the uncomfortable discoveries of science itself, that observer and observed cannot be separated (at least in certain realms or dimensions)? Does it not lead many cosmologists and particle physicists to comment on the kind of 'mystery' I am alluding to?

I'm afraid my ability to argue this point is poor because I haven't enough knowledge of these areas, but did I dream Chaos and QM, particles popping in and out of existence, wave-particle confusions... Is it Heisenberg who would have a good laugh about the observer being irrelevant.

It's not that the observer is irrelevant, it's that certain characteristics of the observer are irrelevant - that the observer is a life-form and is conscious are two of them.

Someone summed it up by saying that science has not found any limit. Newton might have said the same about his clockwork universe.

My question was probably rather naive and stupid. Forget it if you like. I just find it stimulating to my curiosity to note that there have been approximately 13 billion human brains through history, but only one of them is supposed to be the 'cause' of 'me'. Annother way of looking at it is to imagine all that mechanistic evolution taking place and questioning whether my hallucinatory perception of a self was at all necessary. Being one of those several billions for a fleeting lifetime is like crawling inside the cosmos somehow, unnecessarily putting it on as a skin. It feels significant and strange to exist or have the dream of existing as a person. I mean, we might repeat the process with AI robots, but if we suddenly found ourselves embodied in one, we'd be dim not to wonder why. And if we did, someone would say "It's obvious, dimwit: you have a frame and a CPU, don't you?"

There have been 13 billion license plates through history, but only one of them is VQR 312. You'd be dim not to wonder why.

Linda

[NeilC]

I'm struggling to work out how something which is thinking, even if the creation of a solipsist, can be said to not exist. Surely this the instantiation principle at work?

Are you saying that it's possible for something to hold the thoughts of another? Even then we are still talking about something.

[outofmymind033]

so basically you trying to find the truth to all being by sitting there and letting your thoughts wander.

Bull

Hell, if you ever discover something with your consciousness you shouldn't get the credit, your consciousness should. You didn't do any of the thinking.

Everything the world has discovered has been out of thought and science, Einstein did not have a random epiphany and just say omg, speed of light, e=mc2. He researched these things. That's why you know their names, Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc.

The only thing meditation does is relieve muscle tension

[Darat]

I was specifically addressing this statement:

"Solipsism is every bit as valid a position as materialism, more so even, in a truly empirical sense....all we can be truly sure of is our thoughts themselves...."

I'm saying that there is no way that you can know for sure whether you are the solipsist or a creation of the solipsist. There is no test you can ever conceive of that can answer that question so when andyandy states that "more so ... empirical sense" it isn't the case since there is no empirical way to make that determination within solipsism. That we "think we think our thoughts" is not evidence that we do in solipsism.

[John Freestone]

Did you actually read and internalize any of the criticisms of your position?

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

[outofmymind033]

you've caused no offence, this is a skeptics forum..... basically whatever you say, they're going to reject, lol

[plumjam]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

John, please don't shut up.
I found your prior posts in this thread very well thought out and excellently expressed. Unfortunately, the reaction you received from some of the respondents is pretty much par for the course here. It just goes to confirm your apt description of the orthodoxy here being a scientific religion.
When the foundation of their religion is brought into question some here react just as dogmatically as the religious fundamentalists they spend so much time and energy criticising.

Sometimes it's actually fun to witness :D

[Irony]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

The only reason you caused offense was that (intentionally or not) you lectured the people here on what their beliefs were. The use of terms like "materialist religious dogma" serves no purpose other than to insult, and the fact that you used it even after it was explained how materialists take solipsism into account hinted that you weren't actually listening. I would rather you see this as a learning experience than as a reason to leave.

[Matt the Poet]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

Regardless of how ‘sincerely held’ your beliefs may be, you’ve put them up for discussion. They are being discussed. A number of points have been raised. I’m not sure that ‘internalise’ is the right word for what it would be at the very least polite to do with them, but ‘addressing’ might be.

And you haven’t. Several posters, for example have made the point that there is no logical reason to consider consciousness, or indeed identity, a more special physical property than any other (you’re on a hiding to nothing with Quantum Physics, incidentally – as far as I understand it a half-silvered mirror could do the job of an ‘observer’ to the satisfaction of all the relevant equations), and beyond a sort of vaguely emotive special pleading you have yet to provide one.

[aggle-rithm]

Surely i can be more sure of my thoughts than i can be of anything that exists outside myself? For anything that i think exists outside myself requires that the stimulus is correctly received and interpreted, whereas at least with my thoughts, that external step is not required.....



Paraphrasing from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":

Mouse: We'll give you a new brain and program it so you act exactly as you do now. No one would know the difference.
Arthur: I'D know the difference!
Mouse: No, you wouldn't. You'd be programmed not to.

[fls]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

If it upsets you to be asked to defend what you perceive to be a misrepresentation of your views, consider what sort of response you should expect when you set out to do the same to others.

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.

I suspect you were shocked at how quickly your insincerity was recognized (you did give us more than a few clues :)). You were still given the benefit of the doubt, though. We're nice about that.

Linda

[andyandy]

That's only true after you've made the assumption that you are sure of your thoughts. There is just no way that you can tell if you are the solipsist or just a creation of the solipsist in solipsist metaphysics.

perhaps i can be sure of my thoughts, just not sure that i'm the one thinking them....:)

[andyandy]

I was specifically addressing this statement:

"Solipsism is every bit as valid a position as materialism, more so even, in a truly empirical sense....all we can be truly sure of is our thoughts themselves...."

I'm saying that there is no way that you can know for sure whether you are the solipsist or a creation of the solipsist. There is no test you can ever conceive of that can answer that question so when andyandy states that "more so ... empirical sense" it isn't the case since there is no empirical way to make that determination within solipsism. That we "think we think our thoughts" is not evidence that we do in solipsism.

true - i think empirical was completely the wrong word to use :)

it depends if solipsism requires that you know of your own existence by the existence of your thought, or the weaker knowledge that your thought exists (regardless of who really is thinking it)....i'd agree that the former position falls into the same uncertainty that besets the materialist position...though the latter weaker claim may still stand....

[aggle-rithm]

What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?


Well, it's not a religion, but I suspect you know that already.

Science is aggressively defended by its adherents because it's the only method of understanding reality that consistently works, and it's often under attack by people who claim, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that it doesn't.

However -- and I say this with all due respect -- I think you know that, as well.

[plumjam]

Well, it's not a religion, but I suspect you know that already.

Science is aggressively defended by its adherents because it's the only method of understanding reality that consistently works, and it's often under attack by people who claim, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that it doesn't.

However -- and I say this with all due respect -- I think you know that, as well.

I'd suggest that John had something more akin to scientism, than to science, in mind when he made that comment.

[JoeEllison]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science. Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized', that I'm a moron, or that I reject the idea of evidence and therefore should shut up, or that science has not found any limits to its knowledge, or that the observer is irrelevant...or all of them? And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were? What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.
The point isn't to shut up. The point is that you are ignoring what other people are saying, and plowing ahead in defining some of us in stark contradiction to what we're saying to you. When you're criticized, you plow forward with more of this "scientific religion" nonsense, which shows that you're determined to miss the point.

You don't have to agree with what anyone says. It is insulting as hell to ignore what people say while pretending to respond to it.

[aggle-rithm]

I'd suggest that John had something more akin to scientism, than to science, in mind when he made that comment.

I guess we'll never know. Apparently, he's too clever for us to understand what he's saying.

[joobz]

The point isn't to shut up. The point is that you are ignoring what other people are saying, and plowing ahead in defining some of us in stark contradiction to what we're saying to you. When you're criticized, you plow forward with more of this "scientific religion" nonsense, which shows that you're determined to miss the point.

You don't have to agree with what anyone says. It is insulting as hell to ignore what people say while pretending to respond to it.
Ah, but how do you know that's the point? ARe you really sure that there is a point, or a person who's making that point? What if the point is actually a slice of bread and isn't a person's idea at all. What if the slice of bread had a point and was eaten by a grapejelly without knowing reality? Can we really be certain that the reality you think is real or really imposed on the reality of other's is actual?!???

[Ichneumonwasp]

perhaps i can be sure of my thoughts, just not sure that i'm the one thinking them....:)

I think that would be accurate.:)

One of the things that Interesting Ian seems to get wrong is related to this point. While it is clear that our feelings are unimpeachable (that is, that we experience the feelings cannot be denied by anyone), the accuracy of those feelings is not. So, for instance, while I may feel that I am conscious, it is not necessarily the case that I am conscious. It is necessarily the case that I feel conscious, and that you cannot deny me this feeling. I could, however, be wrong in my feeling that I am conscious.

Ian incorrectly conflates the incorrigibility of feelings as feelings with the incorrigibility of feelings corresponding to other realities. Where it gets tricky is in the definition of consciousness. Some people define consciousness as these feelings, or qualia, so it is very tempting to postulate that the feelings themselves all are incorrigible. Unfortunately, they can be denied; just as Descartes postulated much earlier. We cannot be wrong about the fact that we are having the feeling, but we can be wrong about the intention of the feeling, or what the feeling is about.

[JoeEllison]

Ah, but how do you know that's the point? ARe you really sure that there is a point, or a person who's making that point? What if the point is actually a slice of bread and isn't a person's idea at all. What if the slice of bread had a point and was eaten by a grapejelly without knowing reality? Can we really be certain that the reality you think is real or really imposed on the reality of other's is actual?!???

I appreciate your attempt to display how utterly useless the OP's philosophy is. It is more funny to me than you meant it to be... my Psych professor read us a letter from a schizophrenic today, and the similarities are striking! :D

[joobz]

I appreciate your attempt to display how utterly useless the OP's philosophy is. It is more funny to me than you meant it to be... my Psych professor read us a letter from a schizophrenic today, and the similarities are striking! :D
I've been told on more than one occasion that my ability to write and say random jibberish word salad is a little TOO good.

I usually explain that I have MPD, but all my personalities have the same name and the exact same personality. The outside observer doesn't see the difference but in my head there are 100 joobzs all telling me to do the things I would do anyways.

[Darat]

true - i think empirical was completely the wrong word to use :)

it depends if solipsism requires that you know of your own existence by the existence of your thought, or the weaker knowledge that your thought exists (regardless of who really is thinking it)....i'd agree that the former position falls into the same uncertainty that besets the materialist position...though the latter weaker claim may still stand....

Now your thoughts are making my head hurt!

[hammegk]

When did so many of you become idealists? :)

Nah, forget it; just another thought.

[Darat]

...snip...

We cannot be wrong about the fact that we are having the feeling, but we can be wrong about the intention of the feeling, or what the feeling is about.

I think ;) I disagree with this. How can I know that the feeling I think I am having is that feeling and (for example) I'm not just a construct that is programmed to think that it is having that feeling?

[hammegk]

IMO, "feelings" is a lurch into the stuff we name physical. The thought "I am in pain" is not "feeling", which is the pain itself.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think ;) I disagree with this. How can I know that the feeling I think I am having is that feeling and (for example) I'm not just a construct that is programmed to think that it is having that feeling?

You can't. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. I know, you're all shocked.

Thinking about it a bit more, it might make sense to separate this phenomenon into first and second order feelings, much like the separation between first and second order beliefs.

That I have a feeling I cannot doubt (with the provisos below). It is simply there. But I cannot be sure that the feeling is mine or that the feeling correctly relates to an external reality. The initial feeling is the first order feeling, but whatever I may construct about that feeling or think about it -- such that it occurs within "me" or that it relates to some external reality -- is a second order feeling/belief about feeling. I cannot be wrong that the feeling exists (since feeling it is its existence) but I can be very wrong about what the feeling means.

Does that make more sense?

ETA:

in other words, I don't think it is possible to "think you are having a feeling" without someway having the feeling. It is inherent to the thought of the feeling.

Of course, this brings up the very sticky issue of what a feeling is in the first place. Anyone want to tackle that?

[PixyMisa]

Thanks. I think there's a lot of strength in most of these arguments within their materialist religious dogma.
And you wonder the responses you receive are sometimes hostile?

They have an internal logic. Like Newtonian Physics has within certain limits. What I'm trying to suggest is that philosophy is an attempt (ok, perhaps stupid and fruitless, but attractive to some) to try to approach truth.
Well, you're wrong.

Philosophy is the study of thinking. You can only establish truth in relation to something else. If p then q.

Science is one method of doing that, but the problems with the 'bias filter' conception of science are:
1) All of it depends on accepting doubtful knowledge.
That's why one of the fundamental principles of science is to repeat the experiment, to confirm the observation.

I realise that most of you are aware of this and I'm not disputing that over time science can establish reasonable faith in certain propositions.
Nope. No "faith". Nothing is accepted on faith. Does the observation match my own? Do I get the same result when I repeat the experiment? Does the theory produce useful and accurate predictions?

I might trust a scientific theory, but trust and faith are two very different animals.

What I am saying, from a philosophical point of view, is that this is faith, since all scientific discoveries are 'best guesses'.
If you are talking about theories, then this is inaccurate at best. Theories are predictive models of the world, and the thing about a predictive model is that you can test it. As many times as you want. No faith is required, because you can actually check.

The filter is based on a human invention, confidence (the mathematical variety, I mean, the basis of statistics).
Right. No faith required.

If something is 'statistically significant' it is so with reference to some purely arbitrarily chosen confidence quotient.
Not purely arbitrary. We choose the desired confidence for entirely practical reasons. 95% confidence in a single experiment is fine. 95% confidence that a bridge will hold together is not so good.

So what this means is that the scientist says, "That'll do, I'll take that as best-guess-reality".
Baloney. What the scientist says is that given all the factors involved, this is the probability that the result is an accurate representation of whatever we were trying to determine. And then others repeat the experiment.

Now that's fine, except that it is then transmuted by semi-conscious people into "established fact", and we get the kind of badgering here towards anyone who QUESTIONS its philosophical basis: the facts are in; your conscious experience is evolutionarily useful froth on a material sea of patterned accident.
Do you actually dispute that it's an established fact that brains generate consciousness?

And if so, on what evidentiary basis?

2) Objective observations might not be filtered through a bias filter so much as distorted by the objectifying, pattern-making habit of our minds (which is why there is so much made of the possible potential of altered states of awareness to open the 'doors of perception' to more truthful apperception of reality, rather than merely being hallucinatory error).
You can make that argument. You'll be laughed at, of course. For one thing, objective observations (as best we can make them) led to such inventions as the airplane, while "altered states of awareness" simply lead to people walking off roofs believing they can fly.

For another thing, we know, as I pointed out earlier, how drugs screw up the information processing function of the brain. Far from opening the "doors of perception", good ol' materialist science shows us that, as expected, they just mess with your mind.

And finally there's the question of results. Science produces results. Consistently. Your "more truthful apperception of reality" has been experience by countless individuals since the beginning of history and has produced... Poetry. And mostly bad poetry.

Of course, to a dedicated, pious materialist, the problem is solved by default; to a philosopher it is not.
Not "by default". By endless, tedious observation, experimentation and calculation. By hard work, not by pulling the answers out of your butt.

Even this I put as "might not be..." because I am agnostic, exploring reason and experience in search of undeniable truth.
Really?

Those of you who say that materialism is undeniable have failed to realise that you have no way of knowing whether you are dreaming that belief.
Sure I do. I'm not asleep.

Anyway, I don't think that anyone has said that materialism is undeniable. I said that, for example, it is indisputable that mind is brain function, but by that I mean something different. You can deny that mind is brain function, but there is no rational, evidence-based argument, no dispute, that you can bring to support your denial. Any such denial is based solely on faith.

The philosopher, perhaps wrongly, perhaps stupidly, recognises that the 'established fact' you lot are so sure of is not fact, but faith, and asks again "What do I actually know?"
Again, you fail to understand. That question has been asked, and answered, and we moved on. It's just not interesting.

What do I actually know, without the possibility of doubt? Not a whole lot. Okay, let's assume materialism is true and see what happens... Hey, look at that, it works!

Andyandy has enough freedom of thought to say that thought is more reliable than the objects being thought about.
Thought? Reliable? Heh.

Those who meditate report that even thoughts can be observed as objects, separate from the witness, the "I" thinking them.
Yeah? Those who experience high fevers report fairies sitting on their beds talking to them. Those who are recovering from strokes report malevolent ducks hanging around their hospital rooms.

Of course, traditionally some of them come to a similar conclusion (or rather, they assert, they aquire direct knowledge) as some of you have been saying here - that the self is utterly illusory (it is one of the tenets of Buddhism). However, it is a very different kind of understanding than what many of you seem to be saying, that facts are just observed, filtered through the magic bias filter of scientific experimentation, appreciated by the clear view of your eyes.
Science is designed as a process to produce reliable and useful results. The scientific method developed not because someone thought that this was a great way to pass time, but because it turned out that if you checked your ideas, confirmed your results, in this specific way, you made much more progress than if you just noodled around.

I am not denying the functional usefulness of science and technology, or external reality.
Okay.

I am reminding us that what we observe has already had a cognitive pattern imposed on it by our minds: we call it a chair and sit on it, even though in a natural sense there is no such thing as a chair; 'chair' is an ideal
Nope. There's no such thing as an ideal chair.

"Chair" is a category.

and you can do the thought experiment of constructing less and less chair-like chairs and find a continuum from 'not-chair' to 'chair' and the dividing line between the two is down to your personal taste in how comfortable you like to be when you sit down.
There's no such continuum.

In a similar way, whatever science 'measures' might have already been projected, as it were, constructed, rather than observed in the raw.
That doesn't mean much. A measurement is not the thing it measures, nor does any scientist think otherwise. A measurement is an interaction.

Am I mistaken in stating that this is one of the uncomfortable discoveries of science itself, that observer and observed cannot be separated (at least in certain realms or dimensions)?
Yes, you are mistaken.

Does it not lead many cosmologists and particle physicists to comment on the kind of 'mystery' I am alluding to?
Don't know about many. There are some, certainly.

I'm afraid my ability to argue this point is poor because I haven't enough knowledge of these areas, but did I dream Chaos and QM, particles popping in and out of existence, wave-particle confusions... Is it Heisenberg who would have a good laugh about the observer being irrelevant.
No. He'd agree, in fact. Heisenberg showed that it's not that the observer can't simultaneously measure a particle's position and momentum to arbitrary accuracy, but rather that a particle doesn't simultaneously have a position and momentum defined to arbitrary accuracy. The observer isn't the problem; it's the nature of matter that's the problem.

Someone summed it up by saying that science has not found any limit.
That was me.

Newton might have said the same about his clockwork universe.
No.

Science hasn't found any limit to what can be explained. That is, we know of nothing that can't, in principle, be studied and eventually understood by the scientific method. That is not a claim that we know everything.

Newton could have said that there was no known limit to the explicative power of science, and he would have been right, and he'd still be right, even though we've learned an immense amount since his day.

My question was probably rather naive and stupid. Forget it if you like. I just find it stimulating to my curiosity to note that there have been approximately 13 billion human brains through history, but only one of them is supposed to be the 'cause' of 'me'.
Why is this at all remarkable? It's your brain. If it was my brain, it would be generating my mind.

Annother way of looking at it is to imagine all that mechanistic evolution taking place and questioning whether my hallucinatory perception of a self was at all necessary.
It's not a hallucination. It's real. And yes, it does have useful evolutionary function, and the perception of self is clearly present in simpler form in all animals. (The "mirror test" shows this in higher animals. But even a worm will draw itself away from pain.)

Being one of those several billions for a fleeting lifetime is like crawling inside the cosmos somehow, unnecessarily putting it on as a skin.
To you, perhaps.

It feels significant and strange to exist or have the dream of existing as a person. I mean, we might repeat the process with AI robots, but if we suddenly found ourselves embodied in one, we'd be dim not to wonder why. And if we did, someone would say "It's obvious, dimwit: you have a frame and a CPU, don't you?"
Eh?

[Tumblehome]

Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized'...?


For starters, your continued insistence on calling science a religion. They are completely different animals, each with its own goals and methodologies. By definition, each excludes the other from membership in their clubs. You can't equate the two. They are bereft of equation. If you don't see that, you won't get far with any argument here.

[PixyMisa]

I tried to express that my 'position' was agnostic, but shared some of my personal questions about that and put some of my sincerely held criticisms of science.
We don't care about your sincerity, at least, not much. We care about evidence and logical rigour.

Which criticisms of my non-position should I have 'internalized'
The ones that were actually made, not your straw-man versions of them.

And why should that be the point of my discussing things here with people, to internalize their criticisms of my views, even if I defined what they were?
Because that's called learning.

What is it about this scientific religion that makes its adherents so evangelical and unable to let others have different views?
Three falsehoods and a slur. Pretty good for one sentence.

I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them.
Since they are wrong, and it's been explained why they are wrong, we don't need to do any internalizing.

I hoped that there might be some value in my discussing these things here, but it was a mistake.
You didn't engage in a discussion.

I'll shut up. I'm shocked how defensive and dislikable I have become here at JREF. I apologise for any offence I've caused.
No need to apologise; you haven't caused any great offence. You just happen to be wrong, is all.

[Jimbo07]

They are completely different animals, each with its own goals and methodologies.

Meh,

I'd argue that one is a methodology. The difference is that the other is a conclusion...

;)

[joobz]

You just happen to be wrong, is all.
This is the part I find quite funny.
Except for the rare exception, scientists aren't afraid to be wrong. They are afraid of being dogmatic. they do not want to be in opposition to observed reality.

Sure a bit of an ego hit might be felt, but being wrong is common and quite helpful. It proves you've learned something.

This seems to be in opposition to most faith/religions, where it seems that being wrong is the ultimate horror. Something to avoid at all costs, even if it means being intentionally deceitful. it's as though the faithful believe the act of admitting errror is the step at which being wrong occurs. As long as they don't admit it, they won't be wrong.

Those who follow a scientific view know that being right or wrong on a subject is a simple truth, which can be externally verified. If you fail to admit that error, taht doesn't make you any less wrong. It simply means that you are both wrong and dogmatic.

[Stout]

PixyMisa...thanks for the translations...I'm not being facetious here when i say I read the OP before there were any responses to it and had absolutely no idea what it said.

I was thinking Intelligent Design.

[PixyMisa]

It helps to have seen the same argument a hundred times before.

It goes like this:

We can't explain consciousness (which isn't really true; we can explain many aspects of consciousness in terms of specific brain function, just not everything) therefore consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality.

Which is of course a non-sequitur. It also leaves you to explain not only why there is a material universe, but also why we only ever encounter consciousness together with very specific material processes. You end up with dualism at best, and more often, simple incoherence.

Anyone who thinks this is reasonable needs to first drink eight glasses of wine and then tell me that it's mind that affects matter and not vice versa.

Conchusnez izza funmendl nacher 'v realty just isn't that convincing.

[Jekyll]

Now your thoughts are making my head hurt!

That's all right, it's not your head. :D

[lupus_in_fabula]

Anyone who thinks this is reasonable needs to first drink eight glasses of wine and then tell me that it's mind that affects matter and not vice versa.

…Or anaesthesia. Having been “put to sleep” numerous times (albeit not with ketamine), one tends to become more humble in one’s view about consciousness not being dependent on physical processes.

[Tumblehome]

I'd argue that one is a methodology. The difference is that the other is a conclusion...


Okay, I was thinking the methodology of religion is to invent a conclusion through fantasy/wishful thinking/acid trips/etc.

[PixyMisa]

…Or anaesthesia. Having been “put to sleep” numerous times (albeit not with ketamine), one tends to become more humble in one’s view about consciousness not being dependent on physical processes.
An excellent point. If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, why does it have an off switch?

[lupus_in_fabula]

If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, why does it have an off switch?

Well, I guess some seem to argue that consciousness is not really absent; it’s just a state where one’s subjective experience of consciousness is absent. But then again, why make an assumption about consciousness by referring to the “obvious” subjective experience of consciousness in the first place then? I smell faulty reasoning, like below:

X: "I know consciousness is real, because I can clearly experience it as real."
Z: "There are conditions that prevent you from experiencing that."
X: "Well yeah, that’s just the absence of subjectivity, consciousness remains."
Z: "So, in effect, you’re saying that a dream created in your sleep could also continue to exist, regardless of you waking up from that dream?"
X: "Yeah, because the dream feels so real every time I dream it."
Z: " :boggled: "

[Stout]

Thanks PM

It's a argument I pretty much been familiar with my whole life, or at least variations of it. I think it all started with " Did you ever think that our universe could simply be a speck of dust under a giant's fingernail" or some such attempt to portray reality being different from how we know and love it.

It's not a topic that I've ever experienced in an academic setting ( I studies sciences ) and whenever it comes up IRL it's usually accompanied by a dose of street philosophy or New Age woo like " I'm a being of light who's only temporarily inhabiting this physical body"

Now I settle into the JREF and I see these/this argument presented in a coherent sounding fashion, complete with words I've never heard before ( like materialist) and end up spending so much time googling different words and ideas that I have a hard time determining what I feel I should dismiss, and what I should take as legit.

[hammegk]

An excellent point. If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, why does it have an off switch?
An excellent point if you consider your consciousness, or mine, as the fundamental nature of reality.

Is that strawman carrying a red-herring?

[PixyMisa]

An excellent point if you consider your consciousness, or mine, as the fundamental nature of reality.
All forms of consciousness that we have any evidence of come with an off-switch, so your quibble doesn't apply.

If you wish to hypothesize some imaginary immaterial consciousness which isn't the consciousness we experience subjectively and study objectively, but some other thing with the same name and zero evidence, then you are free to do so.

If you actually make anything useful out of that, though, you'll be the first.

Is that strawman carrying a red-herring?No. It's a direct reply to the not-claims of the OP.

[Darat]

Quite timely news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7213972.stm

[Dancing David]

It just goes to confirm your apt description of the orthodoxy here being a scientific religion.
When the foundation of their religion is brought into question some here react just as dogmatically as the religious fundamentalists they spend so much time and energy criticising.




Hi Plumjam,

It might appear that you still just making unsupported assertions and then using them as some sort of proof. You have a trail of unanswered question on the forum. The use of emotional appeal is not very good critical thinking.

[Dancing David]

I think ;) I disagree with this. How can I know that the feeling I think I am having is that feeling and (for example) I'm not just a construct that is programmed to think that it is having that feeling?



That is it in the nutshell, we can't.

We are biological constructs and we have ongoing fuzzy programing.(To all appearnces)

We are the p-zombie.

[aggle-rithm]

An excellent point. If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, why does it have an off switch?

Another question: If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, then how did reality manage for such a long time without it?

[Dancing David]

IMO, "feelings" is a lurch into the stuff we name physical. The thought "I am in pain" is not "feeling", which is the pain itself.


Still the thoughts would appear to be a biological formation in the brain. Feelings are cognitive constructs placed upon the body sensations. Unknown to most people feelings are largely thought constructs placed contextualy on the physical sensations.

[Dancing David]

You can't. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. I know, you're all shocked.

Thinking about it a bit more, it might make sense to separate this phenomenon into first and second order feelings, much like the separation between first and second order beliefs.

That I have a feeling I cannot doubt (with the provisos below). It is simply there. But I cannot be sure that the feeling is mine or that the feeling correctly relates to an external reality. The initial feeling is the first order feeling, but whatever I may construct about that feeling or think about it -- such that it occurs within "me" or that it relates to some external reality -- is a second order feeling/belief about feeling. I cannot be wrong that the feeling exists (since feeling it is its existence) but I can be very wrong about what the feeling means.

Does that make more sense?

ETA:

in other words, I don't think it is possible to "think you are having a feeling" without someway having the feeling. It is inherent to the thought of the feeling.

Of course, this brings up the very sticky issue of what a feeling is in the first place. Anyone want to tackle that?


Well the data is all we have.

Feelings are learned labels we apply to physical states interpreted by the physical framework of the brain. The difference between sexual arousal, fear and anger is very slim physicaly. It is the set of associative, cognitive and conditioned contexts that help us to interpret our feelings.

And it is very possible to demonstrate the cognitive nature of interpretation, the use of cognitive behavioral therapy allows people to reinterpret the contextual clues and change the perceptions, as well as the patterns of behaviors that support the interpretations.

[UnrepentantSinner]

We are the p-zombie.

I stepped in deep doodoo on p-zombies a number of years ago on this forum, but it simply is unfathomable to me that when so much of the root of philosophy extends back to math and something as basic as A = B =/= B, how something being almost but not quite the exact same as something else, while still being the same thing, isn't some sort of violation of mathematical rules and logic.

But what do I know. I drink beer and notice my mind being effected by physical influences daily, as opposed to those periodic Absinthe drinkers who come up with philosophy. ;)

[PixyMisa]

I stepped in deep doodoo on p-zombies a number of years ago on this forum, but it simply is unfathomable to me that when so much of the root of philosophy extends back to math and something as basic as A = B =/= B, how something being almost but not quite the exact same as something else, while still being the same thing, isn't some sort of violation of mathematical rules and logic.
Yep, that's pretty much it. P-zombies only make sense if your worldview doesn't. Or at least, there's only a distinction between p-zombies and "real people" in that case. Under materialism, people are p-zombies.

[John Freestone]

Hello again. I said I'm happy for you to believe whatever you believe. I have put criticisms of science, or of certain understandings of science that I believe are commonly held and are demonstrated here strongly, but I do not intend to keep arguing them, and I don't demand others 'internalize' them. and PixyMisa replied
Since they are wrong, and it's been explained why they are wrong, we don't need to do any internalizing.Earlier, when I asked why I should 'internalize' others' views put to me, PixyMisa said: because that was called learning.

It is funny that you don't see the relativity of people's views, PixyMisa. These points could be turned round. I happen to believe that your views (e.g. much of what you have said about science) are wrong, I have explained why they are wrong, and you have failed to 'learn' because you haven't 'internalized' them (as was explained, this was meant to indicate something more like 'contemplate' than just take on without question).

This difference in viewpoints, of course, is partly the cause of some of us (including me) getting defensive and dismissive of others' ideas, fail to contemplate them, and thus fail to learn.

I will repeat one point that I think you have failed to contemplate, since your answer seems not to demonstrate an understanding of it: that the scientific method for understanding reality is based on a confidence level and is therefore not able to tell us anything with absolute certainty about reality. You seem to refute this because we can choose a confidence level that suits the needs of our experiment (95% being a common one). That is true; however, my point was, as I said, that this choice is arbitrary (and, as I thought was implied, is less than 100%): hence, if a scientist thinks a result is highly important, s/he can use 99%, if it's less so, 70%...this is the nature of the arbitrariness I was talking about, which makes results of all scientific experiments have some element of doubt).

You seem to argue that such arbitrariness can be overcome by repeating the same experiment. There are a few problems with this, but one is that the repetitions will use the same method, with the same weakness. Thus, while it is reasonable to argue that experiments support a hypothesis, and increasing evidence adds further support, the hypothesis is never proven; it always remains, as many many many scientists will agree - a 'best guess'.

Now, it seems to me that there are many places we could go from there: we could say that that's ok, we're not bothered, we understand that science gives us best guesses, current hypotheses, and get back to the lab to test some more; we could throw up our hands and exclaim "Well, we've nothing better than that!"; etc.

What I find difficult to concede is that we could ignore that conclusion to the point where we say: You are wrong. You have been told why you are wrong. We can point to research that demonstrates that you are wrong. This is precisely the standpoint that I was criticising, the misconception of 'trusted beliefs' as 'fact'.

I understand that getting theoretically closer to possible Truth can be useful. I also understand that the more pure, philosophical or metaphysical questioning that some people have engaged in here (and I am sorry I have got distracted by the scientism rather than engage in it to date) might be pointless and get us going round the same old intangible circles as people have gone round for millennia.

I do not mean to imply, as someone else has said, that I'm so clever that you won't understand me. That would be as daft as saying that you are so clear in your scientific understanding that any other view is away with the fairies. What I do feel, however, is that some people 'get it' - the question, I mean, ignoring the many answers we might find later - the view that there is something problematic about subjectivity. And they seem to me not to be making a retrogressive step into delusion, but waking up to a new perspective, often transcending and including the earlier paradigm, not dismissing all of it.

And it often begins by waking up from the delusion of scientism. Because a string of 95%s doesn't make Reality, no matter how far we iterate it. Sometimes it happens by suddenly noticing how bizarre are the theories science has arrived at, that theoretical hidden dimensions, Time 0, Multiverses, or the graviton are hardly any saner concepts than spirits or reincarnation. This leads to a new, mature mystical contemplation and learning, asking questions like mine here, or wondering whether something, or someOne had to have lit the Big Bang.

[PixyMisa]

Hello again. I said and PixyMisa replied
Earlier, when I asked why I should 'internalize' others' views put to me, PixyMisa said: because that was called learning.
Precisely.

It is funny that you don't see the relativity of people's views, PixyMisa.
Because it's not relative.

Science actually works. Waffle - a polite description for your opening post - does not.

These points could be turned round.
Not if you want to be taken seriously.

I happen to believe that your views (e.g. much of what you have said about science) are wrong, I have explained why they are wrong, and you have failed to 'learn' because you haven't 'internalized' them (as was explained, this was meant to indicate something more like 'contemplate' than just take on without question).
You have made statements. I have shown why, with reference to the real world, your statements are baseless.

This difference in viewpoints, of course, is partly the cause of some of us (including me) getting defensive and dismissive of others' ideas, fail to contemplate them, and thus fail to learn.
Perhaps so, but irrelevant. Your viewpoint, insofar as it is coherent, has no demonstrable utility whatsoever. That is why we reject it.

I will repeat one point that I think you have failed to contemplate, since your answer seems not to demonstrate an understanding of it: that the scientific method for understanding reality is based on a confidence level and is therefore not able to tell us anything with absolute certainty about reality. You seem to refute this because we can choose a confidence level that suits the needs of our experiment (95% being a common one). That is true; however, my point was, as I said, that this choice is arbitrary (and, as I thought was implied, is less than 100%): hence, if a scientist thinks a result is highly important, s/he can use 99%, if it's less so, 70%...this is the nature of the arbitrariness I was talking about, which makes results of all scientific experiments have some element of doubt).
That's why we repeat the experiment.

You seem to argue that such arbitrariness can be overcome by repeating the same experiment. There are a few problems with this, but one is that the repetitions will use the same method, with the same weakness.
No.

There are multiple reasons to repeat experiments: To eliminate bias on the part of the experimenter. To eliminate simple error. To eliminate improperly controlled conditions.

And as well as changing the experimenter, the equipment, and the location, we change specific details of the experiment as well. Over and over.

Thus, while it is reasonable to argue that experiments support a hypothesis, and increasing evidence adds further support, the hypothesis is never proven; it always remains, as many many many scientists will agree - a 'best guess'.
No. It's not a guess.

In science, a hypothesis is a predictive model of the natural world. A theory is a hypothesis that has been supported through extensive experimentation or observation.

A hypothesis is a statement that if you do this under these conditions, the result will be this. It lays out the precise conditions that signify and a relationship (usually mathematical) between the variables and the result.

To describe that as a "guess" is misleading at best.

Now, it seems to me that there are many places we could go from there: we could say that that's ok, we're not bothered, we understand that science gives us best guesses, current hypotheses, and get back to the lab to test some more; we could throw up our hands and exclaim "Well, we've nothing better than that!"; etc.
John, you've forgotten something in all of this: Science actually works. We all test the predictions of science constantly, though not very methodically. And it works. It is consistent, the models are accurate - not complete, but accurate.

What I find difficult to concede is that we could ignore that conclusion to the point where we say: You are wrong. You have been told why you are wrong. We can point to research that demonstrates that you are wrong. This is precisely the standpoint that I was criticising, the misconception of 'trusted beliefs' as 'fact'.
There is no misconception of "trusted beliefs" as "fact", because there are no "trusted beliefs" involved. We start with certain metaphysical assumptions; we construct hypotheses, we test them, we refine them. From the resulting theories we can construct and test further hypotheses. And if any of it contradicts our observations, it's not the observations that are rejected.

I understand that getting theoretically closer to possible Truth can be useful.
What "Truth"?

I also understand that the more pure, philosophical or metaphysical questioning that some people have engaged in here (and I am sorry I have got distracted by the scientism rather than engage in it to date)
What "scientism"?

might be pointless and get us going round the same old intangible circles as people have gone round for millennia.
Yeah. No wastebaskets.

I do not mean to imply, as someone else has said, that I'm so clever that you won't understand me. That would be as daft as saying that you are so clear in your scientific understanding that any other view is away with the fairies. What I do feel, however, is that some people 'get it' - the question, I mean, ignoring the many answers we might find later - the view that there is something problematic about subjectivity.
Why do you consider that there is anything problematic with subjectivity? Computer programs exhibit the same properties, and yet they are precisely understood physical systems.

And they seem to me not to be making a retrogressive step into delusion, but waking up to a new perspective, often transcending and including the earlier paradigm, not dismissing all of it.
What does this perspective actually tell us? How does it transcend the earlier paradigm? Of what use is any of this? Does it agree with purely materialist metaphysics or contradict it, and if the latter, what evidence is there that this new paradigm has any connection with reality?

In short, those words are pretty, but they don't convey any information.

And it often begins by waking up from the delusion of scientism.
Again with the "scientism". You deliberately mischaracterise science, and then blame people for adhering to your strawman. Not going to win you any points here.

Because an endless string of 95%s doesn't make Reality, no matter how far we iterate it.
Or perhaps it's not deliberate; perhaps you just don't understand what science is about. Science is a methodology for constructing and testing descriptive, predictive models. Reality is reality.

Sometimes it happens by suddenly noticing how bizarre are the theories science has arrived at, that theoretical hidden dimensions, Time 0, Multiverses, or the graviton are hardly any saner concepts than spirits or reincarnation.
No.

Hidden dimensions - by which I assume you mean the "rolled up" dimensions of string theory - are at least testable in principle. If gravity propagates through those dimensions, then the inverse-square law that governs gravity in the macro-scale will not apply at a sufficiently small scale. We can currently only test this down to about one millimetre, which isn't small at all compared to our ability to test the other fundamental forces.

I don't know what you mean by "Time 0". If you are referring to the moment the universe was created, the Big Bang, then that there was such a moment is a perfectly straightforward inference from the fact that the universe is presently expanding. Trace an expansion backwards in time far enough and you'll end up at a single point.

With multiverses, I'm guessing that you're talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The important thing to note is that this is an Interpretation; it is not a theory, or a hypothesis, or anything of that sort. If it were, it would be called the Many Worlds Hypothesis, or some such. It is properly viewed as philosophy unless and until someone comes up with a way of distinguishing it from other interpretations of QM.

The graviton, in turn, is the hypothetical carrier particle of the force of gravity. It's not intrinsically any more weird than the photon or the gluon, or indeed the electron, all of which we use quite successfully to describe real-world interactions. And it's not something made up on a whim either; it's part of a class of theories to explain gravity in quantum-mechanical terms. We are saying that if there is a carrier particle for the gravitational force, then these are the properties we would expect of it, and this is how we might establish its existence.

Whereas with reincarnation and spirits, the first thing we find is that there isn't even a single standard definition of these terms. The second thing we find is that there is no evidence at all to support these concepts in reality. And the third thing we find is that supporters of these ideas have no coherent ideas as to how to ascertain the validity (or otherwise) of these phenomena.

Or, as I said several paragraphs back: No.

This leads to a new, mature mystical contemplation and learning, asking questions like mine here, or wondering whether something, or someOne had to have lit the Big Bang.
What is new about this? People have been wondering the exact same thing since before we had written language.

What is mature about it? Except in the sense of mature cheese, in that it's old and smells bad.

Where is the learning? Given that this line of questioning has persisted for thousands of years without producing any answers, what can you claim to have learned?

And where do you get off advocating navel-gazing at the expense of science, which has done more to improve human quality of life than any other thing ever?

[John Freestone]

Science is a methodology for constructing and testing descriptive, predictive models. Reality is reality.Ah, you're getting it. Keep up the good work. ;)

[bokonon]

I will repeat [...] that the scientific method for understanding reality is based on a confidence level and is therefore not able to tell us anything with absolute certainty about reality. You seem to refute this because we can choose a confidence level that suits the needs of our experiment (95% being a common one). That is true; however, my point was, as I said, that this choice is arbitrary (and, as I thought was implied, is less than 100%): hence, if a scientist thinks a result is highly important, s/he can use 99%, if it's less so, 70%...this is the nature of the arbitrariness I was talking about, which makes results of all scientific experiments have some element of doubt).

You seem to argue that such arbitrariness can be overcome by repeating the same experiment. There are a few problems with this, but one is that the repetitions will use the same method, with the same weakness. Thus, while it is reasonable to argue that experiments support a hypothesis, and increasing evidence adds further support, the hypothesis is never proven; it always remains, as many many many scientists will agree - a 'best guess'.
What is the non-arbitrary confidence level of the information available to you via meditation?

Because a string of 95%s doesn't make Reality, no matter how far we iterate it. Sometimes it happens by suddenly noticing how bizarre are the theories science has arrived at, that theoretical hidden dimensions, Time 0, Multiverses, or the graviton are hardly any saner concepts than spirits or reincarnation. This leads to a new, mature mystical contemplation and learning, asking questions like mine here, or wondering whether something, or someOne had to have lit the Big Bang.
What are the insights into reality that this "new, mature mystical contemplation and learning" have provided? It seems to me that all you've added to the discussion here is a lot of questions, which essentially boil down to "What if there is more?"

Questions are easy. Answers are hard. Science provides answers. For as long as humans have had culture, it has provided more answers about the nature of reality, and better answers about the nature of reality, than any other discipline. Of course there's more, but the scientific method has a pretty good track record for transforming "poorly understood" into "better understood."

When "mystical contemplation" has some tangible and useful ANSWERS to bring to the table, be sure to let me know.

[Roadtoad]

What "scientism"?

In an otherwise excellent reply, this stuck out for me. I think this is a typo, PM.

[Mobyseven]

I'm such a deep philosopher
my concepts pass above the heads
of ignorant cryptographers
and scientists and biomeds.
I'm so deep that I tack extra lines onto my stanzas that don't rhyme and call them 'postmodern'.

Subjectively the student spoke
of isotopes that might go 'boom'
if some misguided petty bloke
should blow them up and leave a tomb.

Just down the hall a teacher's aid
discussing relativity
subjectively told how it laid
foundations for technology.

While Doctor Watson, in the lab
subjectively explained to you
why sticking people with a jab
can help their body fight the flu!

Of course, subjectively, it's moot
cause all subjective people know
philosophy's 'subjective fruit'
subjected to an ebb and flow...

I'm so deep in philosophy
my concepts are a cryptic pest
but all the money, thankfully
will go to who can b****** best.
And sometimes I like to tack extra lines onto my stanzas that don't rhyme and call them 'postmodern'. Banana.

[PixyMisa]

In an otherwise excellent reply, this stuck out for me. I think this is a typo, PM.
I don't think so; scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism) is a term often used by woos to accuse anyone who asks for evidence of being beholden to a religion. (If that sentence makes sense.) It's a tu quoque argument.

If John didn't mean it that way, then I'm happy to withdraw that question.

[PixyMisa]

I'm such a deep philosopher
my concepts pass above the heads
of ignorant cryptographers
and scientists and biomeds.
I'm so deep that I tack extra lines onto my stanzas that don't rhyme and call them 'postmodern'.
Nominated. :)

[John Freestone]

What is the non-arbitrary confidence level of the information available to you via meditation?That is a very good question. Of course, it is 0%, a fact that has already been conceded in non-mathematical language: the possibility that I am dreaming all of this. It's important to clear that up. Now, against that, of course, there are all sorts of practitioners of spiritual disciplines who will talk about immediate, absolute knowledge, a personal certainty, sometimes called 'intuition', but clearly this is impossible to verify, and impossible to give any support from scientific investigation, since it relates to 'interior', non-physical conditions, which science can't measure.

This seems to be conceding immediately that science is 95% certain and meditatation 0%. It is a defensible conclusion to draw, already implicit in the question. My discussion of science, however, was meant to draw attention to the fact that, where reality is concerned, actually 95%, even 99.9999% is not actually reality or truth. So taking the most taxing, biggest questions human beings ask, which involve the perception of having an inner, subjective consciousness, or whether the universe can possibly have created it's own space-time and energy-matter at a particular time and position, etc., science is not necessarily a more solid source. In other words, those who report that decades of meditation develops a pure, unhampered vision of truth might just happen to be right, I might be living in an unenlightened state of consciousness, and 95% could mean little more than "somewhat deluded".

Maybe I asked, as some have pointed out, an intractable question, and all we're doing is elaborating it. It will always be possible to explain everything put here (or anywhere!) with scientific materialism, and always possible to explain it with mysticism. Scientists have an easier time pointing out how mysticism involves delusive mental trickery, that's all. The insight that science might actually also involve such delusive mental trickery is a much harder one to contemplate. That will itself give scientific minds more confidence, but that doesn't mean they're right (and arrogance won't make up for the relativity of viewpoints).

Over time, I believe, we make paradigm shifts, and science itself demonstrates that the leading edge of humanity can live for centuries with no idea that their worldview is in some deep sense completely wrong. I tried to point that out in relation to the Newton-Einstein paradigm shift. A great many learned people suspect that a paradigm shift is upon us now, which involves the re-appreciation of the internal, subjective view (the reinstatement of the whole subject of metaphysics, perhaps, or the inclusion of science as a branch and method of philosophy pertaining to a certain realm, instead of the only one we trust). Thus a wider philosophy would include, transcend and re-evaluate science (not overturn it). I don't suppose I need to invite refutation of this as all 'woo' and 'baloney', or contribute other useful contemplations.

I was trying to point to the possibility that this might be true. When some bald bloke in an orange robe says he has direct knowledge of other realms, it is easy to conclude that he's deluded. When some suited narrator announces on TV that scientists believe that there may be many more dimensions, or that there just has to be dark matter in the universe to make the sums work, we just lap it up, utterly ignoring the missing percentages-of-confidence that make all science speculative.

I have no problem with people who admit that science gives us best guess theories about a physically measurable universe. I am concerned that so many - as I said before - transmute this web of self-referential evidence into hard fact. I was advised by someone that I ought to distinguish between the two, and that the latter was more commonly called scientism. Since I have heard it used that way before, I adopted the term. This is another insight of postmodernism that scientists fail to understand - words are just labels. Indeed this is one way of looking at the wraith of imaginary reality that science says it is measuring - it is all words, numbers, categories, which are ultimately mental constructs. For instance, when I was studying geology in the first year of a degree course, I was reading about two types of rock, studying their different properties, where they were found, how they were formed, etc., etc., thinking all the while that they were different things because they had different names, when I realised that they in fact formed a continuum: the two were discriminated by how much of a certain mineral they contained - a percentage measurement - meaning that a particular sample could be one side or the other of this arbitrary line, or theoretically on it.

Okay, might not be a big deal until you realise that this kind of continuum is a ubiquitous quality of reality, perhaps more inherent to reality than "rock" and "water", and that science (indeed our habitual, linguistic and cognitive capacity generally) chops our view of reality up into categories in order to measure it. Hence we have disputes about whether planets are planets or not......I could give dozens of examples out of possibly unlimited ones in science.....which leads some to consider again wholistic theories, or just to question again the clarity of our vision that looks out, thinks it sees matter in particular forms, labels the forms as distinct things, and starts saying things about their relationships - perfectly useful and valid things - just possibly within a limited philosophical perspective.

I tried to draw attention to this - what amounts to our projection of ideals onto the world (as much as or rather than the perception of real objects out there) - with the 'chair' continuum example, but I was told that there is no such continuum. It was a thought experiment. If it fails to be noted in one mind, I can only report that I note it in my own.

What are the insights into reality that this "new, mature mystical contemplation and learning" have provided? It seems to me that all you've added to the discussion here is a lot of questions, which essentially boil down to "What if there is more?"

Questions are easy. Answers are hard. Science provides answers. For as long as humans have had culture, it has provided more answers about the nature of reality, and better answers about the nature of reality, than any other discipline. Of course there's more, but the scientific method has a pretty good track record for transforming "poorly understood" into "better understood."

When "mystical contemplation" has some tangible and useful ANSWERS to bring to the table, be sure to let me know.Well, there have been many answers, but personally I remain agnostic. Maybe next year I will say that all that mystical, meditation stuff was nonsense - it's a mechanistic universe and "I" am just a mindboggling illusory froth noticing its mechanical existence, or maybe I'll say I have reaffirmed my capacity for direct intuition and here at JREF I would sound like even more of a nutter.

[PixyMisa]

That is a very good question. Of course, it is 0%, a fact that has already been conceded in non-mathematical language: the possibility that I am dreaming all of this. It's important to clear that up. Now, against that, of course, there are all sorts of practitioners of spiritual disciplines who will talk about immediate, absolute knowledge, a personal certainty, sometimes called 'intuition', but clearly this is impossible to verify, and impossible to give any support from scientific investigation, since it relates to 'interior', non-physical conditions, which science can't measure.
The problem I have with this is that there is no reason - none - to believe that these "'interior', non-physical conditions" exist at all.

My discussion of science, however, was meant to draw attention to the fact that, where reality is concerned, actually 95%, even 99.9999% is not actually reality or truth.All science is tentative. We know that; all scientists know that, so there's no argument there. That didn't appear to be the gist of your original post, hence the disagreement.

So taking the most taxing, biggest questions human beings ask, which involve the perception of having an inner, subjective consciousness, or whether the universe can possibly have created it's own space-time and energy-matter at a particular time and position, etc., science is not necessarily a more solid source.Whoa there. Now, on the latter point, science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe, and things outside that causal bubble are beyond the power of science to explain.

But it can be argued - and I do argue this - that things outside that causal bubble cannot be meaningfully said to exist, either.

On the former point, though, there is no reason to believe that there is not a straightforward material explanation for subjective experience, and indeed, we have made enormous progress towards exactly that. The MIT Introduction to Psychology (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-00Fall-2004/CourseHome/index.htm) lecture series covers a lot of ground in how physical processes give rise to perception and experience, and how we know that. It's also extremely accessible and well-presented, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

In other words, those who report that decades of meditation develops a pure, unhampered vision of truth might just happen to be right, I might be living in an unenlightened state of consciousness, and 95% could mean little more than "somewhat deluded".Nope.

It's not 95%. It's untold trillions of 95 percents. In our modern technological civilisation, we all perform subtle tests of scientific theories every day without ever thinking about it. Every time you press a key on your keyboard, the result depends on solid state physics, which depends on Quantum Mechanics. Every time you turn on your car navigation system to visit someone, you're testing the Theory of Relativity.

Whereas, in all of recorded history, no-one has ever demonstrated a "pure, unhampered vision of truth".

Maybe I asked, as some have pointed out, an intractable question, and all we're doing is elaborating it. It will always be possible to explain everything put here (or anywhere!) with scientific materialism, and always possible to explain it with mysticism.It's not a given that we can explain everything via the scientific method; it's just that so far we have an excellent track record.

Mysticism explains nothing by the definition of "explain" you used when talking about science.

Scientists have an easier time pointing out how mysticism involves delusive mental trickery, that's all.That's not even relevant. The important thing is that mysticism does not work.

The insight that science might actually also involve such delusive mental trickery is a much harder one to contemplate.No; it's easy to contemplate. It's just wrong.

That will itself give scientific minds more confidence, but that doesn't mean they're right (and arrogance won't make up for the relativity of viewpoints).Of course they're right. Fly to the moon and back via mysticism; make a phone call by mysticism; heck, light a fire by mysticism. Go on. We'll be here when you get back.

Over time, I believe, we make paradigm shifts, and science itself demonstrates that the leading edge of humanity can live for centuries with no idea that their worldview is in some deep sense completely wrong.Eh?

I tried to point that out in relation to the Newton-Einstein paradigm shift.Not so great as all that. Yes, Einstein made a significant breakthrough. But (as I just noted in another thread) his work depended on the prior work of other physicists and mathematicians such as Maxwell and Lorentz, who depended on the work of earlier scientists.

Newton wasn't wrong; it's just that the laws he proposed don't work in all cases. And it was known for a considerable time before Einstein was even born that something was up with Newtonian physics, because the orbit of Mercury does not follow those rules. That was one of the puzzles that the Theory of Relativity solved.

A great many learned people suspect that a paradigm shift is upon us now, which involves the re-appreciation of the internal, subjective view (the reinstatement of the whole subject of metaphysics, perhaps, or the inclusion of science as a branch and method of philosophy pertaining to a certain realm, instead of the only one we trust).Metaphysics never went away. Philosophy never went away. There is no sign that anything interesting is about to come out of them, though. Unlike science.

Thus a wider philosophy would include, transcend and re-evaluate science (not overturn it).Why? How? What would it change?

Science is based on a very small number of very straightforward assumptions. And science works. If you monkey with those assumptions, science doesn't work; you get pseudo-sciences like Homeopathy instead.

So what is this re-evaluation going to accomplish? And how? How can it transcend science? Replace the materialistic ontology with something else? If that something else is monistic, then either it agrees with materialism, in which case you haven't changed anything, or it doesn't, in which case it's at variance with much of what we've already discovered. If it's dualistic, then you have to overcome the inherent contradiction of dualism.

I don't suppose I need to invite refutation of this as all 'woo' and 'baloney', or contribute other useful contemplations.What you have said is just waffle. It contains no specifics; as it stands, it hardly makes any sense at all.

I was trying to point to the possibility that this might be true.There is no reason to think so.

When some bald bloke in an orange robe says he has direct knowledge of other realms, it is easy to conclude that he's deluded.We don't do that, though. We say, show us.

When some suited narrator announces on TV that scientists believe that there may be many more dimensions, or that there just has to be dark matter in the universe to make the sums work, we just lap it up, utterly ignoring the missing percentages-of-confidence that make all science speculative.Bzzt. You lose.

Here's the thing: These statements are actually based on something; there's a real, physical, objective reason for them. With the case of dark matter, it's that the gravitational behaviour of galaxies requires more matter than we can see. If it was bright, we could see it. We can't see it, therefore it's dark. It's not some wild speculation.

As for the additional dimensions, even you realise that this is speculative. Theoretical physicists working on comprehensive models of the behaviour of our universe have found that the maths works far better if they introduce additional dimensions. These additional dimensions produce real, physical, measurable (in principle) differences. The size of the difference depends on the size of the dimensions, so with the current limitations of our instruments all we can say is that they are smaller than about one millimetre in diameter.

Both of these statements are in an entirely different category to your saffron-robed monk.

I have no problem with people who admit that science gives us best guess theories about a physically measurable universe.They are not guesses.

I am concerned that so many - as I said before - transmute this web of self-referential evidence into hard fact.Nor is it self-referential. Science is based on specific metaphysical assumptions, and builds from there. It is not circular.

I was advised by someone that I ought to distinguish between the two, and that the latter was more commonly called scientism."Scientism" is most commonly used as a slur by those who do not understand science; you'll not find that scientists react well to this.

Since I have heard it used that way before, I adopted the term.Terrific.

This is another insight of postmodernism that scientists fail to understand - words are just labels.Nope. Wrong. Completely and hopelessly wrong.

Science raises the production of new terminology - of labels, as you have it - to an art form. The precision of the defintions of terms in science makes the quibbling of lawyers and literary critics look like the babblings of a pre-schooler. Scientists know damn well that words are just labels. That's why they use mathematics.

Indeed this is one way of looking at the wraith of imaginary reality that science says it is measuring - it is all words, numbers, categories, which are ultimately mental constructs.You're confused.

A measurement is a mental construct. But science is not measuring mental constructs, it is measuring reality.

For instance, when I was studying geology in the first year of a degree course, I was reading about two types of rock, studying their different properties, where they were found, how they were formed, etc., etc., thinking all the while that they were different things because they had different names, when I realised that they in fact formed a continuum: the two were discriminated by how much of a certain mineral they contained - a percentage measurement - meaning that a particular sample could be one side or the other of this arbitrary line, or theoretically on it.And? The rocks are real. The minerals are real. The label is arbitrary. No-one disputes this.

Okay, might not be a big deal until you realise that this kind of continuum is a ubiquitous quality of reality, perhaps more inherent to reality than "rock" and "water", and that science (indeed our habitual, linguistic and cognitive capacity generally) chops our view of reality up into categories in order to measure it.This doesn't change two very important things: One, the nature of reality; two, the fact that science works.

Hence we have disputes about whether planets are planets or not......I could give dozens of examples out of possibly unlimited ones in science.....So can anyone. It doesn't matter in the least.

which leads some to consider again wholistic theoriesJust as an aside, it's "holistic". More to the point, how do you jump from the fairly mundane insight that words are just labels to discarding the only metaphysical system that we've ever found to be of any use?

or just to question again the clarity of our vision that looks out, thinks it sees matter in particular forms, labels the forms as distinct things, and starts saying things about their relationships - perfectly useful and valid things - just possibly within a limited philosophical perspective.Nope.

Science makes certain metaphysical assumptions, as I've said time and time again. But that's just the structure used for scientific research. When it comes to results, science doesn't give a rat's patootie what your metaphysical assumptions are. It works exactly the same for everyone.

I tried to draw attention to this - what amounts to our projection of ideals onto the world (as much as or rather than the perception of real objects out there) - with the 'chair' continuum example, but I was told that there is no such continuum.Right. There's no such continuum, and the Platonic concept of ideals is simply false. There are categories. There are concepts. You can't project ideals onto the world because there's no such thing.

It was a thought experiment. If it fails to be noted in one mind, I can only report that I note it in my own.And what does that achieve?

Well, there have been many answers, but personally I remain agnostic.Do you know what the word "agnostic" means?

Maybe next year I will say that all that mystical, meditation stuff was nonsense - it's a mechanistic universe and "I" am just a mindboggling illusory froth noticing its mechanical existence, or maybe I'll say I have reaffirmed my capacity for direct intuition and here at JREF I would sound like even more of a nutter.Or maybe you'll make an attempt to read and understand what people here are telling you.

[John Freestone]

When I said It is funny that you don't see the relativity of people's views, PixyMisa.you replied Because it's not relative.I was saying that people have different opinions. You appear to disagree. QED.

There is no misconception of "trusted beliefs" as "fact", because there are no "trusted beliefs" involved. We start with certain metaphysical assumptions; we construct hypotheses, we test them, we refine them. From the resulting theories we can construct and test further hypotheses. And if any of it contradicts our observations, it's not the observations that are rejected."Trusted beliefs" - how different is that idea from "metaphysical assumptions"? I understand that observations take precedence over current hypotheses. Despite this, science invloves some metaphysical assumptions that are habitually left unchallenged, fixed axioms behind the transient theories or hypotheses. One such is the very question my OP asks. Science assumes materialism. It assumes that mind is a function of certain systems of matter. It assumes that spirit is meaningless. Etc. It assumes that its own methods are not flawed at a metaphysical level. In fact, 'metaphysics' is made, by choice, arbitrarily, irrelevant, and only 'physics' is allowed.

It cannot be criticised for that within its own limits, because metaphysics is not the remit of science. The metaphysical assumptions you talk about are not testable, they are assumptions beyond scientific reach. In that sense, science is built on unscientific foundations, untestable axioms. You believe them, that's all.

Why do you consider that there is anything problematic with subjectivity? Computer programs exhibit the same properties, and yet they are precisely understood physical systems.It seems we must either have very different concepts of 'subject' or programming is way ahead of anything I've heard of. What computer program has intuited its own existence? What computer program has said, "Hey, I think therefore I am!" Do these computer programs ask who created them, by any chance, or haven't they got that sophisticated yet? Please, I'm serious. I'd love to know.

What does this perspective actually tell us? How does it transcend the earlier paradigm? Of what use is any of this? Does it agree with purely materialist metaphysics or contradict it, and if the latter, what evidence is there that this new paradigm has any connection with reality?It recognises the metaphysical assumptions of the old paradigm as being just that, first of all. That is how it transcends the old paradigm. It is useful because human beings like to try to understand reality and transcend their delusions. You seem to equate utility with technological complexity, yet for every beneficence of technology, someone else could point out a terrible consequence. Science is proud of its value-nutrality (we're only interested in what is true), then, when that truth is questioned, it appeals to its value. We can love science for giving us modern civilisation, or hate it for it. That is a matter of taste. Is the internal combustion engine a boon or a contributor to the sickness of the ecosystem?

Again with the "scientism". You deliberately mischaracterise science, and then blame people for adhering to your strawman. Not going to win you any points here.I'm not after points.


The graviton, in turn, is the hypothetical carrier particle of the force of gravity. It's not intrinsically any more weird than the photon or the gluon, or indeed the electron, all of which we use quite successfully to describe real-world interactions.There you go with the 'real world' again. Metaphysical assumption.

Whereas with reincarnation and spirits, the first thing we find is that there isn't even a single standard definition of these terms. The second thing we find is that there is no evidence at all to support these concepts in reality. And the third thing we find is that supporters of these ideas have no coherent ideas as to how to ascertain the validity (or otherwise) of these phenomena.Quite right. These are metaphysical assumptions too.

And where do you get off advocating navel-gazing at the expense of science, which has done more to improve human quality of life than any other thing ever?More assumption and utility and value-judgements (which, no doubt aren't relative either, you're just right and that's and end to it). It might well be that navel-gazing lifted us from conscious proto-humans to self-conscious humans. It might be that the development of philosophy, pre-science, and with it aesthetics and morals, was the best invention. It might be arguable that had we not gone further we would not now be desperately trying to pull ourselves back from environmental disaster. I hope science is as good at clearing up the mess as it was in causing it.

[ceo_esq]

Whoa there. Now, on the latter point, science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe, and things outside that causal bubble are beyond the power of science to explain.

But it can be argued - and I do argue this - that things outside that causal bubble cannot be meaningfully said to exist, either.

What's the argument again? And could you elaborate on the notion of "causally closed"?


The important thing is that mysticism does not work.

By reference to what are you concluding that mysticism doesn't "work"? What would it mean for mysticism to work? Because it doesn't seem likely that your examples of flying to the moon or making a phone call via mysticism would constitute instances of its working ("work" arguably implying, in this context something, along the lines of final causation).


Metaphysics never went away. Philosophy never went away. There is no sign that anything interesting is about to come out of them, though. Unlike science.

Science came out of them, in a sense. That's pretty interesting. "Interesting" itself being a concept that arguably involves metaphysical suppositions, of course.


They are not guesses.

Well, whether they are or not (John Freestone's phrase was "best guess theories about a physically measurable universe") would appear depend on what you'd include within the scope of a "guess", which has rather a variable usage. They're not random guesses, certainly, but it's worth bearing in mind that it's not in the nature of science to assert that a particular theory is the only explanation - even the only physical explanation, the only complete explanation, the simplest explanation or the best possible explanation - for a given phenomenon. I daresay this might defensibly fall within some people's usage of "best guesses".


Just as an aside, it's "holistic". More to the point, how do you jump from the fairly mundane insight that words are just labels to discarding the only metaphysical system that we've ever found to be of any use?

Just as an aside, "wholistic" is a perfectly standard variant spelling. How do you justify the suggestion that there's only "one metaphysical system that we've ever found to be of any use"? Indeed, whether something strikes one as "useful" is itself going to depend, again, on suppositions of a metaphysical nature.


There's no such continuum, and the Platonic concept of ideals is simply false.

I'm not expressing disagreement here, but I for one would be very interested in an objective demonstration of the falsity of the Platonic concept of ideals. You should consider publishing it, too, because its novelty will no doubt attract much attention.

[PixyMisa]

When I said you replied I was saying that people have different opinions. You appear to disagree. QED.
No. I agree that people have different opinions. What I'm pointing out is that the value of these opinions is not equal. Some opinions are just plain wrong.

"Trusted beliefs" - how different is that idea from "metaphysical assumptions"?
Because metaphysical assumptions are neither trusted nor beliefs.

I understand that observations take precedence over current hypotheses.
Okay.

Despite this, science invloves some metaphysical assumptions that are habitually left unchallenged, fixed axioms behind the transient theories or hypotheses.
Yes, I said that.

This is because you can't do science otherwise.

Science is a method for providing natural explanations of natural processes. To do this systematically, you have to make two assumptions.

First, that the natural, material universe is what exists.
Second, that it behaves consistently.

One such is the very question my OP asks. Science assumes materialism.
Yes. Technically, it assumes naturalism, but it's not a significant difference.

It assumes that mind is a function of certain systems of matter.
Nope.

It assumes that spirit is meaningless.
Nope.

It assumes that its own methods are not flawed at a metaphysical level.
Nope.

In fact, 'metaphysics' is made, by choice, arbitrarily, irrelevant, and only 'physics' is allowed.
And nope.

Science doesn't assume that mind is a function of certain systems of matter; that follows from the very first assumption.

Science doesn't assume that spirit is meaningless. Define the term, and we can discuss it.

Science doesn't assume that its own methods are not flawed. It builds its methods logically from the two assumptions I gave.

And finally, science doesn't make metaphysics irrelevant. Science is founded in metaphysics. What makes metaphysics largely irrelevant is the fact that science turns out to work.

It cannot be criticised for that within its own limits, because metaphysics is not the remit of science.
That's true.

The metaphysical assumptions you talk about are not testable, they are assumptions beyond scientific reach.
But that one I won't necessarily grant you.

Let's say that science didn't work. Let's say that we couldn't explain the motions of the planets. Let's say that F=MA except on Tuesdays in October. Let's say that saffron-robed weirdos really could, oh, light fires with their minds.

Science is based on two assumptions. It works if and only if both those assumptions are true. It follows that if it can be shown that science cannot be made to work, at least one of those assumptions is false.

In that sense, science is built on unscientific foundations, untestable axioms.
Precisely. Any formal system is built on untestable axioms.

You believe them, that's all.
No.

No, I don't.

At least, not in the sense you mean. Because it doesn't matter at all what I believe. If you make those assumptions, science works. So even if you don't believe them, as long as you construct your hypotheses and perform your experiments as if you did, it still works. That's called methodological naturalism.

It seems we must either have very different concepts of 'subject' or programming is way ahead of anything I've heard of.
Probably a bit of both.

What computer program has intuited its own existence?
What does that mean? I've written programs that are aware of their own operation, that examine their running state and operating environment and make decisions based on that. This isn't experimental, either, it's common practice. In computer science, this sort of thing is known as reflection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_science)).

What computer program has said, "Hey, I think therefore I am!" Do these computer programs ask who created them, by any chance, or haven't they got that sophisticated yet? Please, I'm serious. I'd love to know.
They haven't got that sophisticated yet. But it's quite clearly a difference of degree, and not of essence, the same as we are different only in degree from apes.

It recognises the metaphysical assumptions of the old paradigm as being just that, first of all.
I think this is your single biggest misunderstanding. We know that. We always knew that. We've never lost sight of it. No new perspective is required.

That is how it transcends the old paradigm.
Then it does nothing at all.

It is useful because human beings like to try to understand reality and transcend their delusions.
What delusions? Seriously, what delusions?

You seem to equate utility with technological complexity
Not even remotely. I equate utility in a system designed to produce explanations with its success in producing explanations.

Science works. Mysticism fails.

yet for every beneficence of technology, someone else could point out a terrible consequence.
Technology is beside the point, and the uses to which people put technology even more beside the point.

Science is proud of its value-nutrality (we're only interested in what is true), then, when that truth is questioned, it appeals to its value.
Complete nonsense.

Science isn't interested in what is "true", it's a method for explaining the universe, which it either does, or doesn't. (It does, by the way.) You're conflating morals with explicative power here, which is beyond absurd.

We can love science for giving us modern civilisation, or hate it for it. That is a matter of taste. Is the internal combustion engine a boon or a contributor to the sickness of the ecosystem?
Who cares?

There you go with the 'real world' again. Metaphysical assumption.
It's a metaphysical assumption that can kill you. That's one hell of an assumption.

Quite right. These are metaphysical assumptions too.
No, they're not. They aren't even well-defined or logically coherent concepts.

More assumption and utility and value-judgements (which, no doubt aren't relative either, you're just right and that's and end to it).
Yep, I am.

Science brings us modern medicine. Modern medicine brings us not being dead. Where's the relativity in that?

It might well be that navel-gazing lifted us from conscious proto-humans to self-conscious humans.
Even if that were true, how is it relevant?

It might be that the development of philosophy, pre-science, and with it aesthetics and morals, was the best invention.
You have that backwards. Humans had aesthetics and morals before we had written language.

It might be arguable that had we not gone further we would not now be desperately trying to pull ourselves back from environmental disaster. I hope science is as good at clearing up the mess as it was in causing it.
That's the most ridiculous argument I've heard today. You don't like the outcomes that science is predicting, so science is at fault for providing the understanding to develop the technology that let us build our modern civilisation and is therefore false and we would all have been better off dead in a ditch at 14 of typhoid or pleurisy but happy with our knowledge of morals and aesthetics, not that we ever got to learn anything about them given that we spent the entirety of our short lives in poverty and squalor?

[PixyMisa]

What's the argument again? And could you elaborate on the notion of "causally closed"?
A system is causally closed if nothing outside the system can have any effect on what is inside the system.

Let's say I posit the existence of a parallel universe where leprechauns cheerfully hand out pots of gold to every passer by. But that universe and ours are each causally closed; they don't interact with each other in any way.

Does the fairy gold exist? Well, can I touch it? No. Can I see it? No. Can I spend it? No. Does it have any effect on our universe at all? Well, I know about it; it affects my thoughts. But if I was wrong, if the other universe didn't exist, it would affect my thoughts exactly the same way.

So the existence or non-existence of the parallel universe are equivalent states. Therefore it is not meaningful to say it exists.

By reference to what are you concluding that mysticism doesn't "work"? What would it mean for mysticism to work? Because it doesn't seem likely that your examples of flying to the moon or making a phone call via mysticism would constitute instances of its working ("work" arguably implying, in this context something, along the lines of final causation).Hey, you tell me. People have made claims that they can do that sort of thing via mysticism. No-one has ever made good on such claims, so the only reasonable assumption is that mysticism doesn't work.

If you want to produce some other claim, some entire other category of claims, feel free. We can take it from there.

Science came out of them, in a sense. That's pretty interesting.Yup.

"Interesting" itself being a concept that arguably involves metaphysical suppositions, of course.And personal predilections.

Well, whether they are or not (John Freestone's phrase was "best guess theories about a physically measurable universe") would appear depend on what you'd include within the scope of a "guess", which has rather a variable usage. They're not random guesses, certainly, but it's worth bearing in mind that it's not in the nature of science to assert that a particular theory is the only explanation - even the only physical explanation, the only complete explanation, the simplest explanation or the best possible explanation - for a given phenomenon. I daresay this might defensibly fall within some people's usage of "best guesses".When you look at something like the Theory of Evolution, or of Relativity (either one), or of Quantum Mechanics, you aren't looking at a guess. You are looking at tens or hundreds of thousands of scientific papers. Calling it a "guess" is not defensible; it's a deliberate, calculated, and utterly misguided insult.

Just as an aside, "wholistic" is a perfectly standard variant spelling.No, it's an error.

How do you justify the suggestion that there's only "one metaphysical system that we've ever found to be of any use"? Indeed, whether something strikes one as "useful" is itself going to depend, again, on suppositions of a metaphysical nature.Well, point out to me another metaphysical system that is of use.

I'm not expressing disagreement here, but I for one would be very interested in an objective demonstration of the falsity of the Platonic concept of ideals. You should consider publishing it, too, because its novelty will no doubt attract much attention.This isn't novel at all, but I'd have to look up who first pointed out the problems with Platonic idealism. Basically, what Plato called "ideals" are what we now consider categories, or sets. They overlap in multiple dimensions; they have no existence beyond the conceptual; they have no influence upon the real world; and most importantly, they are arbitrary.

Which is fine for mathematics, but no good at all as a model of the natural world.

[Stout]

Now there's a rather intense way to start my morning, reading this thread:)

I got to admit, most of this conversation is really over my head but one thing in particular has got me really confused.

PixyMisa, you said that there is no assumption that mind is a function of certain systems of matter and I completely and utterly fail to understand that concept.

As far as my non spiritual brain, or mind can tell, my mind and thoughts are made up of several interacting biochemical processes ( dare I throw the word biomechanical in here too? ) that interact to basically make up that which is "me"

Is there some vein of science that refutes this idea, or am i completely misunderstanding the idea?

[PixyMisa]

No, you're quite right. My point is more subtle than that.

Science makes two and only two assumptions: That the material universe is what exists, and that it behaves consistently.

The existence of minds is an observation. Granted that the material universe is what exists, and minds also exist, it follows that minds are somehow a product of material processes.

What John was doing was listing assumption after assumption, when these are not assumptions at all, but consequences. That's what I was correcting.

[John Freestone]

Basically, what Plato called "ideals" are what we know consider categories, or sets. They overlap in multiple dimensions; they have no existence beyond the conceptual; they have no influence upon the real world; and most importantly, they are arbitrary.

Which is fine for mathematics, but no good at all as a model of the natural world.But that's what I'm trying to say. It could be that we project our ideas (or 'ideals' or 'concepts' or 'categories' or whateverthehellyouwanttocallthem) onto whatever happens to be REAL and measure those things instead of what is really there! And you have presented mathematics as overcoming the problem of 'words' and 'labels' already, if I understood you, which a) ignores the significant similarity, which is that they are both abstractions, arbitrary mental constructs and b) that you have just stated the problem with them: they are "fine for mathematics, but no good at all as a model of the natural world".

You seem to want to have it both ways: science as nothing at all to do with Reality, AND science as explaining it. Actually, you still miss the point, because mathematics is quite a lot of good as a model of the natural world, it's just that this is all it is.

I think the confusion is because you think that when I say that we might be projecting our ideals onto reality I am saying that, after Plato, that the ideals are the real things. I'm saying almost the opposite. I am actually saying, if you read my words, that science is stuck in a subtle form of Platonism, mostly without even knowing it. Mathematical concepts and symbols might be ever so well defined and not the sloppy things we're using here - words - but that doesn't stop them being constructs of a human mind.

[Stout]

Whew!!! Thanks PM

I'm interested in this whole idea of "higher truth" (read woo) moreso in the context of being curious as to why people believe in things like that, and what possible benefits it may bring to their lives. So far IRL I've seen zero evidence of this higher truth interacting with the material world in any way but I strongly suspect it may benefit it's adherents in a "positive thinking" kind of way.

Not that I'm calling scientists ( materialists ) negative, I just suspect that there are others like me who don't need belief to complete their lives and accept the world for what it really is.

[ceo_esq]

A system is causally closed if nothing outside the system can have any effect on what is inside the system.

I understand you now. However, now I think your phrase "science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe" is potentially problematic. "Our causally closed universe" is suggestive, to my mind, of the notion that we know from science that our universe is causally closed, which is not the case (although I think one might accurately say that the possibility that our universe is not causally closed is not a question within the scope of scientific inquiry). Perhaps in a more general way we could say that science is concerned with particular kinds of causation, but that final causation, or even non-physical efficient causation, are not among them.


So the existence or non-existence of the parallel universe are equivalent states. Therefore it is not meaningful to say it exists.

If I follow your argument, the reality or nonreality of any metaphysical thing - goodness, justice, even "meaning" itself - are equivalent states and thus statements about their existence (and, presumably, non-existence) are meaningless. Do I have that right?


Hey, you tell me. People have made claims that they can do that sort of thing via mysticism. No-one has ever made good on such claims, so the only reasonable assumption is that mysticism doesn't work.

Taking a line from the Wikipedia article on mysticism (not because I endorse the statement, but just as an example): "In many cases, the purpose of mysticism and mystical disciplines ... is to reach a state of return or re-integration with the Godhead." I'm not sure exactly what that's supposed to entail, but if that's the purpose, I'm pretty sure I can't deduce, from the fact that no one is setting fires or making phone calls that way, that mysticism doesn't "work" (that is, can't achieve its purpose).


Yup.

...

And personal predilections.

Right ... so, what are the repercussions of that for your suggestion that nothing interesting is going to come out of philosophy or metaphysics?


When you look at something like the Theory of Evolution, or of Relativity (either one), or of Quantum Mechanics, you aren't looking at a guess. You are looking at tens or hundreds of thousands of scientific papers. Calling it a "guess" is not defensible; it's a deliberate, calculated, and utterly misguided insult.

The usage of "best guess" (not my term, of course) strikes me as pretty flexible. I think I've heard it applied to a fair chunk of the spectrum that runs between "wild shot in the dark" and "as sure as can be short of a logical proof". But more importantly, while it's no doubt employed sometimes in a derogatory way, only the hyper-inclined-to-take-umbrage would insist that "best guess" necessarily a deliberate insult. For example, I think we can assume that, whatever the merits of his choice of words, this evolutionary biologist (http://www.mtsu.edu/~rshoward) was not insulting his colleagues (or himself) when he said "The fact of evolution is that all organisms descended from a common ancestor and that populations change over time. The theory of evolution is the best guess that scientists can make to explain how these populations and organisms change."


No, it's an error.

He was not in error. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wholistic)


Well, point out to me another metaphysical system that is of use.

I don't know. Would you say that no system of normative ethics, for example, is of any use?


This isn't novel at all, but I'd have to look up who first pointed out the problems with Platonic idealism. Basically, what Plato called "ideals" are what we now consider categories, or sets. They overlap in multiple dimensions; they have no existence beyond the conceptual; they have no influence upon the real world; and most importantly, they are arbitrary.

Those objections aren't new to me, but a formal disproof of Platonic idealism would be.

[Darat]

I understand you now. However, now I think your phrase "science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe" is potentially problematic. "Our causally closed universe" is suggestive, to my mind, of the notion that we know from science that our universe is causally closed, which is not the case (although I think one might accurately say that the possibility that our universe is not causally closed is not a question within the scope of scientific inquiry). Perhaps in a more general way we could say that science is concerned with particular kinds of causation, but that final causation, or even non-physical efficient causation, are not among them.

...snip...

Your really arguing for the good old "it's turtles all the way down" with a pinch of semantic quibbling thrown in.

It can be successfully argued that the word universe means (in this context) "the entirely of the causally closed system we are part of". So if, for example, we found that our known or even knowable universe is in fact merely a subset of a bigger everything the "closed system" would be refering to the "known universe" and the new uber-universe that our universe exists within.

[Ichneumonwasp]

This isn't novel at all, but I'd have to look up who first pointed out the problems with Platonic idealism. Basically, what Plato called "ideals" are what we now consider categories, or sets. They overlap in multiple dimensions; they have no existence beyond the conceptual; they have no influence upon the real world; and most importantly, they are arbitrary.

Which is fine for mathematics, but no good at all as a model of the natural world.

I think that would be Aristotle, in The Metaphysics, where he argued against Plato's forms. Actually, he did so in a few other works as well.

I guess the common example now is that Plato would look at a chair and say that the chair is not real but only a pale reflection of the Ideal, while Aristotle would say that we should look at every individual chair to get a better idea what "chairiness" really means -- category as the ultimate reality as opposed to category as the abstract generalization of all possible real-world examples.

[John Freestone]

Whew!!! Thanks PM

I'm interested in this whole idea of "higher truth" (read woo) moreso in the context of being curious as to why people believe in things like that, and what possible benefits it may bring to their lives. So far IRL I've seen zero evidence of this higher truth interacting with the material world in any way but I strongly suspect it may benefit it's adherents in a "positive thinking" kind of way.

Not that I'm calling scientists ( materialists ) negative, I just suspect that there are others like me who don't need belief to complete their lives and accept the world for what it really is.Hi Stout

I think people believe in the 'woo' of higher truth because they think it is in some way 'higher' or more truthful or better, etc. But there is a big problem for such believers: the various ideas they call 'higher truth' can be of evolutionary advantage, or simply persuasive ideas that give people good vibes and thus are maintained as memes. The two categories interact, of course.

I see belief in gods as highly advantageous in evolutionary terms. If we imagine a bunch of tribes fighting each other with no belief in god, then by chance and persuasion, one of them develops a religion, the next time they're fighting they might well have more courage and persistence than the others. If we include the idea of being spiritually indestructible, too, which is a large part of most religions - having an immortal soul or whatever - there will also be occasions when the self-sacrifice of numbers of warriors will allow an overall victory, where self-interest might make those (in the 'front line', say) run off, causing the tribe to disintegrate and be easier to defeat. Winners, of course, go home and multiply, and then teach their children about God who made them victorious in batte. This is a very strong reason to doubt the existence of God.

The same principle works on much less dramatic levels, where the (imagined) support of a beneficient god helps people feel calm and confident (which we now know reduces stress, increasing health and longevity) The believer will be more resilient in many different ways, simply by being confident they know how the world operates and believing that it's on their side because they pray or are in the chosen people. Presumably to some degree this confidence must backfire and be an evolutionary disadvantage, but it's reasonable to assume that on the whole it helped people to pass on their genes and pass on their religious culture.

Whether you consider that process as 'woo' interacting with the material world in some way other than 'positive thinking' is a matter of opinion, but the 'positive thinking' explanation is quite a powerful thing (and thus the subjective world of belief and thought contributes causally to factors in the material world. There are those who see this and have their materialism reaffirmed (because they see placebo as a kind of error - and it is a pest in psychology experiments) and others who see it as affirming the mind-body connection, indeed a mind-over-body connection, and perhaps take this as indication of even greater powers of mind than materialism allows for.

Being able to influence my health by what I think would all be 'woo' to some, and obviously might invite the question "Then why not make a million bucks off JR or in some other way demonstrate your supernatural powers?", except that the mind-body connection (placebo, etc.) have already been assimilated into authodoxy, even though they probably weren't at some earlier time. (Interesting question here isn't there - some things are supernatural until they're 'discovered' by a scientist, and then they're scientific, hence science can go back to saying there's never been anything supernatural and never will! Acupuncture, for instance, has been accepted in many Western countries, when it was all codswallop at one time.)

One thing that relates strongly to my question is what you mean when you say you don't need belief and you accept the world as it is. I have been postulating that a lot of people say this (or that they are a 'skeptic') and don't realise that they are really materialists, and even if they do recognise that, they often don't realise that this is a philosophy, implying belief in something. It is assumed that materialism is absolutely given, obvious, unquestionable, the natural thing to think, so the thoughts, the beliefs behind it go unnoticed. It is the authodoxy of our time. Of course, in 17th Century England, say, someone saying they just take the world as it is would imply other obvious facts, such as the Almighty.

[plumjam]

One thing that relates strongly to my question is what you mean when you say you don't need belief and you accept the world as it is. I have been postulating that a lot of people say this (or that they are a 'skeptic') and don't realise that they are really materialists, and even if they do recognise that, they often don't realise that this is a philosophy, implying belief in something. It is assumed that materialism is absolutely given, obvious, unquestionable, the natural thing to think, so the thoughts, the beliefs behind it go unnoticed. It is the authodoxy of our time. Of course, in 17th Century England, say, someone saying they just take the world as it is would imply other obvious facts, such as the Almighty.

This is absolutely spot on. It's a pity so many people seem not to realise it.
Well said, John.

[PixyMisa]

I understand you now. However, now I think your phrase "science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe" is potentially problematic. "Our causally closed universe" is suggestive, to my mind, of the notion that we know from science that our universe is causally closed, which is not the case (although I think one might accurately say that the possibility that our universe is not causally closed is not a question within the scope of scientific inquiry). Perhaps in a more general way we could say that science is concerned with particular kinds of causation, but that final causation, or even non-physical efficient causation, are not among them.
The universe is causally closed by definition. If there's something out there that's causally connected with the universe, it's part of the universe.

If I follow your argument, the reality or nonreality of any metaphysical thing - goodness, justice, even "meaning" itself - are equivalent states and thus statements about their existence (and, presumably, non-existence) are meaningless. Do I have that right?
You're talking about concepts. Concepts exist as representations.

If I asked you, does justice exist, we'd have to agree on a different meaning of the word "exist" than if I'd asked you about apple pie.

Taking a line from the Wikipedia article on mysticism (not because I endorse the statement, but just as an example): "In many cases, the purpose of mysticism and mystical disciplines ... is to reach a state of return or re-integration with the Godhead." I'm not sure exactly what that's supposed to entail, but if that's the purpose, I'm pretty sure I can't deduce, from the fact that no one is setting fires or making phone calls that way, that mysticism doesn't "work" (that is, can't achieve its purpose).
You can't deduce much of anything, because the terms aren't defined. Might as well say that the purpose of mysticism is to achieve a pipik of meeple or merpurily with the netlodo.

Right ... so, what are the repercussions of that for your suggestion that nothing interesting is going to come out of philosophy or metaphysics?
Um... None? I'll note that we already have science.

The usage of "best guess" (not my term, of course) strikes me as pretty flexible. I think I've heard it applied to a fair chunk of the spectrum that runs between "wild shot in the dark" and "as sure as can be short of a logical proof". But more importantly, while it's no doubt employed sometimes in a derogatory way, only the hyper-inclined-to-take-umbrage would insist that "best guess" necessarily a deliberate insult. For example, I think we can assume that, whatever the merits of his choice of words, this evolutionary biologist (http://www.mtsu.edu/%7Ershoward) was not insulting his colleagues (or himself) when he said "The fact of evolution is that all organisms descended from a common ancestor and that populations change over time. The theory of evolution is the best guess that scientists can make to explain how these populations and organisms change."
When it's part of a general attack on science, it's safe to assume it's not meant kindly.

He was not in error. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wholistic)
Your dictionary is broken too.

I don't know. Would you say that no system of normative ethics, for example, is of any use?
I dunno. Can it prop up the short leg of my table?

Those objections aren't new to me, but a formal disproof of Platonic idealism would be.
Can't build a formal disproof of something that's not formally defined.

[ceo_esq]

Your really arguing for the good old "it's turtles all the way down" with a pinch of semantic quibbling thrown in.

It can be successfully argued that the word universe means (in this context) "the entirely of the causally closed system we are part of". So if, for example, we found that our known or even knowable universe is in fact merely a subset of a bigger everything the "closed system" would be refering to the "known universe" and the new uber-universe that our universe exists within.

Not in in the context of what PM said, which was that "science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe". Let's assume, as you say, that it's actually the case that the physical universe is merely a subset of a bigger reality that includes some kind of metaphysical reality (Heaven, God, or some such thing). Even if "causally-closed system" should then refer to the larger set (physical + metaphysical reality), it doesn't follow that the scope of science or scientific description would likewise expand. Science would still be unconcerned with the metaphysical. So it's not really a matter of "turtles all the way down", I think.

[PixyMisa]

I think that would be Aristotle, in The Metaphysics, where he argued against Plato's forms. Actually, he did so in a few other works as well.

I guess the common example now is that Plato would look at a chair and say that the chair is not real but only a pale reflection of the Ideal, while Aristotle would say that we should look at every individual chair to get a better idea what "chairiness" really means -- category as the ultimate reality as opposed to category as the abstract generalization of all possible real-world examples.
Thanks! I was going to say that if people spent more time reading Aristotle and less time reading Plato, we'd all be a great deal better off. :)

Plato was a great thinker, I don't dispute that at all. But for all that's shiny, he's the starting point, not the end!

[PixyMisa]

Not in in the context of what PM said, which was that "science is by definition a description of how things behave in our causally-closed universe". Let's assume, as you say, that it's actually the case that the physical universe is merely a subset of a bigger reality that includes some kind of metaphysical reality (Heaven, God, or some such thing). Even if "causally-closed system" should then refer to the larger set (physical + metaphysical reality), it doesn't follow that the scope of science or scientific description would likewise expand. Science would still be unconcerned with the metaphysical. So it's not really a matter of "turtles all the way down", I think.
Is this "metaphysical reality" causally effective upon the observable universe? Does it actually do anything?

If so, either it's subject to science, or the axioms of the scientific method are false.

If not, it's a matter for literary criticism, not science, because it's no more real than Oz.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Another question: If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, then how did reality manage for such a long time without it?
The same way it survived without "thinking/reasoning" lifeforms. Thinking however, and the consciousness it led to, has to be rooted in the overall "direction/purpose" of the process. Something like how being able to see allows a lifeform to save the energy it would have spent searching for its food in the dark.

[ceo_esq]

The universe is causally closed by definition. If there's something out there that's causally connected with the universe, it's part of the universe.

I can accept that (see my response to Darat on the same subject); however, just because (arguendo) there's something out there that's causally connected with the physical universe doesn't mean that science deals with it. As I said, science is not going to address final causes or non-physical efficient causes, for example, whether they exist or not.


You're talking about concepts. Concepts exist as representations.

If I asked you, does justice exist, we'd have to agree on a different meaning of the word "exist" than if I'd asked you about apple pie.

Possibly in part, although in whatever sense "justice" exists, "apple pie" presumably also exists - in addition to any physical instantiation.


You can't deduce much of anything, because the terms aren't defined. Might as well say that the purpose of mysticism is to achieve a pipik of meeple or merpurily with the netlodo.

I think you're overstating your point there. I'd submit that when, say, John of the Cross or whoever asserts that mysticism is a way of achieving communion with God or whatever, it's nonetheless more intelligible than saying it's a way of achieving a pipik of meeble. At any rate, you're the one who apparently deduced that mysticism could not achieve any intended purpose. How did you arrive there?


Um... None? I'll note that we already have science.

Ah. So you think simply that nothing else useful is forthcoming now.

What about the other part of the question, regarding the metaphysical and/or subjective aspect of whether something is interesting?


Your dictionary is broken too.

Possibly all the dictionaries I've been able to find are, coicidentally, broken on this precise point. It's not exactly the way to bet, though, is it?


I dunno. Can it prop up the short leg of my table?

No (unless perhaps when reduced to a thick printed volume). But so what? Whatever utility a normative ethical system may have is clearly not going to consist in such a thing; that is not the purpose of the system.


Can't build a formal disproof of something that's not formally defined.

Can't demonstrate the falsity of something that's not formally defined, either. But if you think the Platonic system of ideals is not defined, one wonders what you intended to signify by asserting that it was actually false.

[Roadtoad]

Okay, reading this so far has given me a headache. I'm going to need to read some Terry Pratchett to get my eyes uncrossed.

[ceo_esq]

Okay, reading this so far has given me a headache. I'm going to need to read some Terry Pratchett to get my eyes uncrossed.

A capital idea! Enjoy.

[Dancing David]

...
It is funny that you don't see the relativity of people's views, PixyMisa.
...


Hi there some things are not relative in the least, so that is rather a very broad statement.

...
I will repeat one point that I think you have failed to contemplate, since your answer seems not to demonstrate an understanding of it: that the scientific method for understanding reality is based on a confidence level and is therefore not able to tell us anything with absolute certainty about reality. You seem to refute this because we can choose a confidence level that suits the needs of our experiment (95% being a common one). That is true; however, my point was, as I said, that this choice is arbitrary (and, as I thought was implied, is less than 100%): hence, if a scientist thinks a result is highly important, s/he can use 99%, if it's less so, 70%...this is the nature of the arbitrariness I was talking about, which makes results of all scientific experiments have some element of doubt).

this is where the rubber meets the road.

So really?

What is the mass of an electron or a proton, are you really saying that is relative?

You are deliberately vague, so why don't you tell us what research you are talking about?

Have you read how Millikin detrmined the mass of the electron?

What level of doubt is there?


You seem to argue that such arbitrariness can be overcome by repeating the same experiment. There are a few problems with this, but one is that the repetitions will use the same method, with the same weakness.

So look up how Millikin measured the mass of an electron.

What room for doubt is there?

What are you talking about, something in mind?

:)

Thus, while it is reasonable to argue that experiments support a hypothesis, and increasing evidence adds further support, the hypothesis is never proven; it always remains, as many many many scientists will agree - a 'best guess'.

As the kids used to say:

No duh.

This is something you would already know to be a known POV for many of us on the baord, it is not a best guess, it is a best approximation.

What does that have to do with the measured mass of an electron?

:)



Now, it seems to me that there are many places we could go from there: we could say that that's ok, we're not bothered, we understand that science gives us best guesses, current hypotheses, and get back to the lab to test some more; we could throw up our hands and exclaim "Well, we've nothing better than that!"; etc.

What I find difficult to concede is that we could ignore that conclusion to the point where we say: You are wrong. You have been told why you are wrong. We can point to research that demonstrates that you are wrong. This is precisely the standpoint that I was criticising, the misconception of 'trusted beliefs' as 'fact'.

More vagueness, you are entitled to your opinion. What does that do to change the mass of an electron.

What research are you talking about.

:)

I understand that getting theoretically closer to possible Truth can be useful. I also understand that the more pure, philosophical or metaphysical questioning that some people have engaged in here (and I am sorry I have got distracted by the scientism rather than engage in it to date) might be pointless and get us going round the same old intangible circles as people have gone round for millennia.

metaphysics is a semantic game.


I do not mean to imply, as someone else has said, that I'm so clever that you won't understand me. That would be as daft as saying that you are so clear in your scientific understanding that any other view is away with the fairies. What I do feel, however, is that some people 'get it' - the question, I mean, ignoring the many answers we might find later - the view that there is something problematic about subjectivity. And they seem to me not to be making a retrogressive step into delusion, but waking up to a new perspective, often transcending and including the earlier paradigm, not dismissing all of it.

So perceptions are malleable and created by a brain, no mystery there.

:)


And it often begins by waking up from the delusion of scientism.

Oh my, what on earth does that mean?

You can not repeal the actions described as 'the force of gravity'.

Because a string of 95%s doesn't make Reality, no matter how far we iterate it. Sometimes it happens by suddenly noticing how bizarre are the theories science has arrived at, that theoretical hidden dimensions, Time 0, Multiverses, or the graviton are hardly any saner concepts than spirits or reincarnation. This leads to a new, mature mystical contemplation and learning, asking questions like mine here, or wondering whether something, or someOne had to have lit the Big Bang.

You lost me there.

Some questions have no answer, isn't that grand?

[Stout]

Hi John

A few days ago PixiMisa said, upthread that spirituality had given us nothing (to paraphrase) and I've been reflecting on that idea since that time. All I could really come up with were scenarios like the one you posted in your last post about the tribes and I'd also like to suggest, spirituality brought us culture.

So we have two equally matched tribes squaring off, each indulging in their particular rituals to bring on the blessings of the higher powers and they go at it. somebody wins.

Now if we introduce another tribe with superior firepower and not so much faith in the higher powers, who would win? My money's on the guys with the more advanced weapons. If we picture a group of dedicated trained horsemen wielding swords and shields going up against a machine gun, you'll see where I'm going with this.

It would be a prime example of materialism 1....spirituality 0

I'm also having a hard time with this whole science is a belief idea.

Several years ago, my woo positive roommate came home and announced he was doing a firewalk and would I like to join him. I was eager, but alas, broke so I forgo the opportunity. he went, did the walk and came home raving about his experiences of mind over body. Flash forward a couple of years, and I find myself sitting in a university lecture hall learning about specific heat capacity. As an aside the lecturer brought up...you guessed it...firewalking. As a result of that lecture I truly believe that I can firewalk without any special training in focusing my mind to overcome what would seem, on the surface, to be a physical impossibility.

Would that qualify as a belief based on science? After all had I not had that lecture( or watched Discovery Channel ) I wouldn't be believing that i could just go and walk on hot coals.

Now were these mind over matter guys walking on red hot gravel...then I'd be really impressed:D

[John Freestone]

Have you read how Millikin detrmined the mass of the electron?No, I haven't. The electron? Is there just one then? :)

[Dancing David]

This seems to be conceding immediately that science is 95% certain and meditatation 0%. It is a defensible conclusion to draw, already implicit in the question. My discussion of science, however, was meant to draw attention to the fact that, where reality is concerned, actually 95%, even 99.9999% is not actually reality or truth.

Again , no duh.

Science is about models and observation.
:)

So taking the most taxing, biggest questions human beings ask, which involve the perception of having an inner, subjective consciousness, or whether the universe can possibly have created it's own space-time and energy-matter at a particular time and position, etc., science is not necessarily a more solid source.

Some questions however have no answers and if you severe your optic nerve you won't sense your eye's sight any more.

In other words, those who report that decades of meditation develops a pure, unhampered vision of truth might just happen to be right, I might be living in an unenlightened state of consciousness, and 95% could mean little more than "somewhat deluded".

They might be right, what predictions can they make about the behavior of reality?



Maybe I asked, as some have pointed out, an intractable question, and all we're doing is elaborating it. It will always be possible to explain everything put here (or anywhere!) with scientific materialism, and always possible to explain it with mysticism.

Not really, what pedictions does mysticism make about gravity or antibiotics?

I am a practiced mystic BTW.

Scientists have an easier time pointing out how mysticism involves delusive mental trickery, that's all. The insight that science might actually also involve such delusive mental trickery is a much harder one to contemplate. That will itself give scientific minds more confidence, but that doesn't mean they're right (and arrogance won't make up for the relativity of viewpoints).

This is the mistake of looking into the flashlight of enlightenment.

There is no evidence for an internal soul, platonic idealism and other mystical notions.

Science is about modeling. Mysticism is about associative neural networks.

The mass of an object does not change relativly, unless you approach the speed of light.




Over time, I believe, we make paradigm shifts, and science itself demonstrates that the leading edge of humanity can live for centuries with no idea that their worldview is in some deep sense completely wrong. I tried to point that out in relation to the Newton-Einstein paradigm shift. A great many learned people suspect that a paradigm shift is upon us now, which involves the re-appreciation of the internal, subjective view (the reinstatement of the whole subject of metaphysics, perhaps, or the inclusion of science as a branch and method of philosophy pertaining to a certain realm, instead of the only one we trust). Thus a wider philosophy would include, transcend and re-evaluate science (not overturn it). I don't suppose I need to invite refutation of this as all 'woo' and 'baloney', or contribute other useful contemplations.

Um, pony up the evidence , then we can talk.

The perceptual nature of human experience is not a mystery.



I was trying to point to the possibility that this might be true. When some bald bloke in an orange robe says he has direct knowledge of other realms, it is easy to conclude that he's deluded.

What predictions does his personal knowledge make?

When some suited narrator announces on TV that scientists believe that there may be many more dimensions, or that there just has to be dark matter in the universe to make the sums work, we just lap it up, utterly ignoring the missing percentages-of-confidence that make all science speculative.

I think you misunderstand sampling theory.

The subjective nature of experience.

To quote the alleged historical buddha:

Does ripping out your eye make you see beter?



I have no problem with people who admit that science gives us best guess theories about a physically measurable universe. I am concerned that so many - as I said before - transmute this web of self-referential evidence into hard fact. I was advised by someone that I ought to distinguish between the two, and that the latter was more commonly called scientism.

Not really, are you saying you can repeal the force labeled gravity?

Since I have heard it used that way before, I adopted the term. This is another insight of postmodernism that scientists fail to understand - words are just labels.

Garwsh Mister, that sure is a big claim there, are you sre that is such an absolute fact?

Can you repeal the force of gravity?

All human thoghts are equally false and true, some have greater validity than others.

Indeed this is one way of looking at the wraith of imaginary reality that science says it is measuring - it is all words, numbers, categories, which are ultimately mental constructs.

Not really, don't walk into any trees now.

The volume occupied by a sample of mecury in a glass tube does not care if we call it a thermometer or a magic heat stick.

For instance, when I was studying geology in the first year of a degree course, I was reading about two types of rock, studying their different properties, where they were found, how they were formed, etc., etc., thinking all the while that they were different things because they had different names, when I realised that they in fact formed a continuum: the two were discriminated by how much of a certain mineral they contained - a percentage measurement - meaning that a particular sample could be one side or the other of this arbitrary line, or theoretically on it.

Duh?

Does that mean it is still a rock or not.


Okay, might not be a big deal until you realise that this kind of continuum is a ubiquitous quality of reality, perhaps more inherent to reality than "rock" and "water", and that science (indeed our habitual, linguistic and cognitive capacity generally) chops our view of reality up into categories in order to measure it.

Duh?

Not really, that is self referential labeling.

It does not mean that it is healthy to jump off tall buildings without a parachute.

Hence we have disputes about whether planets are planets or not......I could give dozens of examples out of possibly unlimited ones in science.....which leads some to consider again wholistic theories, or just to question again the clarity of our vision that looks out, thinks it sees matter in particular forms, labels the forms as distinct things, and starts saying things about their relationships - perfectly useful and valid things - just possibly within a limited philosophical perspective.

Can you see the planets, do they care what we call them?



I tried to draw attention to this - what amounts to our projection of ideals onto the world (as much as or rather than the perception of real objects out there) - with the 'chair' continuum example, but I was told that there is no such continuum. It was a thought experiment. If it fails to be noted in one mind, I can only report that I note it in my own.

Well, there have been many answers, but personally I remain agnostic. Maybe next year I will say that all that mystical, meditation stuff was nonsense - it's a mechanistic universe and "I" am just a mindboggling illusory froth noticing its mechanical existence, or maybe I'll say I have reaffirmed my capacity for direct intuition and here at JREF I would sound like even more of a nutter.

Don't walk into trees!

;)

[Dancing David]

No, I haven't. The electron? Is there just one then? :)


Some wit suggested that.

I am a pluralist.

The mass is not relative, unless it goes really really fast.

[John Freestone]

Hi John

A few days ago PixiMisa said, upthread that spirituality had given us nothing (to paraphrase) and I've been reflecting on that idea since that time. All I could really come up with were scenarios like the one you posted in your last post about the tribes and I'd also like to suggest, spirituality brought us culture.
I like your thinking, Stout. I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that spirituality brought us culture, but it had a profound effect on it. To me, spirituality is more like a strand of culture, which is much bigger. I'd see science and technology as part of culture, along with art and morality. Morality is closely related to spirituality in our culture, but maybe that's just the way history worked out. If your scenario of the atheist, victorious race (below) had been more common, maybe we'd have developed no religions or religious/spiritual culture.
So we have two equally matched tribes squaring off, each indulging in their particular rituals to bring on the blessings of the higher powers and they go at it. somebody wins.

Now if we introduce another tribe with superior firepower and not so much faith in the higher powers, who would win? My money's on the guys with the more advanced weapons. If we picture a group of dedicated trained horsemen wielding swords and shields going up against a machine gun, you'll see where I'm going with this.

It would be a prime example of materialism 1....spirituality 0
Yes, at least on the face of it, but I wonder if there's something about humanity that causes morality to rise naturally. So if you scenario could be set up as a perfectly controlled experiment where nothing else could change, the moral ones would be defeated by superior firepower, but in real human situations, the moral outrage would increase to the point where victory for the moral would simply be a matter of time, even if their decimated population has to retreat into the hills and wage guerrila war. I don't want to risk getting into political arguments here, but I reckon there is a lot of evidence for this in history. I'll dare to suggest that without it this would probably be in German. EDIT: Just realised I used 'morality' instead of 'higher powers' here, but maybe that's because morality is so closely related to religion rather than science, which is value neutral.

I'm also having a hard time with this whole science is a belief idea.Yeah, but the man will do that to you. Keep trippin'. :D

Several years ago, my woo positive roommate came home and announced he was doing a firewalk and would I like to join him. I was eager, but alas, broke so I forgo the opportunity. he went, did the walk and came home raving about his experiences of mind over body. Flash forward a couple of years, and I find myself sitting in a university lecture hall learning about specific heat capacity. As an aside the lecturer brought up...you guessed it...firewalking. As a result of that lecture I truly believe that I can firewalk without any special training in focusing my mind to overcome what would seem, on the surface, to be a physical impossibility.

Would that qualify as a belief based on science? After all had I not had that lecture( or watched Discovery Channel ) I wouldn't be believing that i could just go and walk on hot coals.

Now were these mind over matter guys walking on red hot gravel...then I'd be really impressed:DIt's not what I meant. Yours is a belief based on science, as you say; I meant that the scientific viewpoint itself is based on underlying beliefs. PM clarified these as twofold, that the material world is what is real, and that it is consistent. I'm not at all convinced that there aren't more, but those are two.

Your example of belief based on science is complicated by including questions about possible 'magic' effects and/or the nature of the placebo effect, and is interesting for it, but essentially you could have taken the boiling point of water as a belief based on science, which would be less complicated and controversial.

The authodox scientific view, as I understand it, is that there is a real fact - the bp of water or the safety of firewalking - which is or is not discovered. The observer is irrelevant, except in whether he or she observes the facts. It is as though the observer could stand outside reality and measure it without influence, or overcoming whatever influence may be active by some means (repetition of experiments, multiplicity of observers communicating and agreeing about it, etc.). Another belief system might say that subject and object - the observer and observed - are more intimately connected, making such 'objective' observations theoretically problematic or even impossible.

I think some confusion arises from the extent to which the relativity argument is applied. In other words, when we observe the very small, subatomic particles, etc., the observer does seem to have some influence (though I'm not an expert and I'm probably going to be corrected - in fact, I'd welcome futher explanation of this), and in observing human behaviours, beliefs, etc., it seems that placebo or mind-influencing-matter has some curious and persuasive effects.

But your point is valid anyway. If you had been pushed into firewalking as a complete unbeliever in it, you might well have experienced great pain and gone away having reaffirmed your belief that it's all dangerous nonsense (and all those other weirdos were just spaced out and pretending it didn't hurt that much and hiding the burns). Having now been converted, albeit through scientific explanation, you might firewalk and feel very little pain. Placebo and self-hypnosis are easily demonstrated, and there are theories about how and where in the body our thoughts influence the physical structure of cells and other bodily functions, so it is not quite so simple to deduce that those who expect to be burned still won't be because the physics says they can't be.

I am extremely doubtful, however, whether anyone could boil water at a different temperature by concentrating on it, psychically bend spoons or fly to the moon by mysticism. It's about how, why and under what conditions mind affects matter (particularly, is it just the body, or does physics suggest more weird interactions in quantum mechanics, etc.), and of course, none of that really affects the underlying 'metaphysical assumptions', as PM put it. The brain could be the cause of mind, and mind still affect the body...or even affect matter outside the body. So we might be scientifically convinced of the latter without it disproving the materialist view of subjectivity.

[Cuddles]

Another question: If consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality, then how did reality manage for such a long time without it?

Maybe it only thinks it did.

[Dancing David]

I like your thinking, Stout. I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that spirituality brought us culture, but it had a profound effect on it. To me, spirituality is more like a strand of culture, which is much bigger. I'd see science and technology as part of culture, along with art and morality.

Total agreement. Spirituality is another mdeia of culture.

Morality is closely related to spirituality in our culture, but maybe that's just the way history worked out. If your scenario of the atheist, victorious race (below) had been more common, maybe we'd have developed no religions or religious/spiritual culture.

Yes, at least on the face of it, but I wonder if there's something about humanity that causes morality to rise naturally.

Game theory?

So if you scenario could be set up as a perfectly controlled experiment where nothing else could change, the moral ones would be defeated by superior firepower, but in real human situations, the moral outrage would increase to the point where victory for the moral would simply be a matter of time, even if their decimated population has to retreat into the hills and wage guerrila war.

Morality and firepower are divorced from each other. :( Unfortunately.

I don't want to risk getting into political arguments here, but I reckon there is a lot of evidence for this in history. I'll dare to suggest that without it this would probably be in German. EDIT: Just realised I used 'morality' instead of 'higher powers' here, but maybe that's because morality is so closely related to religion rather than science, which is value neutral.

Yeah, but the man will do that to you. Keep trippin'. :D

It's not what I meant. Yours is a belief based on science, as you say; I meant that the scientific viewpoint itself is based on underlying beliefs. PM clarified these as twofold, that the material world is what is real, and that it is consistent. I'm not at all convinced that there aren't more, but those are two.

I would say that the premise id not that the material world exists. that is a mott point, there is no difference between the outcome of the idealist and the materialist. the key is that the behavior of the world can be observed.

Isotropy is an axiom. It also appears to be verified.


Your example of belief based on science is complicated by including questions about possible 'magic' effects and/or the nature of the placebo effect, and is interesting for it, but essentially you could have taken the boiling point of water as a belief based on science, which would be less complicated and controversial.

the boiling point of water is based upon observation and varies with air pressure.


The authodox scientific view, as I understand it, is that there is a real fact - the bp of water or the safety of firewalking - which is or is not discovered.

Observed maybe, theories can only make predictions, not facts.

The observer is irrelevant, except in whether he or she observes the facts. It is as though the observer could stand outside reality and measure it without influence, or overcoming whatever influence may be active by some means (repetition of experiments, multiplicity of observers communicating and agreeing about it, etc.). Another belief system might say that subject and object - the observer and observed - are more intimately connected, making such 'objective' observations theoretically problematic or even impossible.

hard to prove, no evidence as of yet.

In social communication belief is important, which is why double blinding is a good protocol.



I think some confusion arises from the extent to which the relativity argument is applied. In other words, when we observe the very small, subatomic particles, etc., the observer does seem to have some influence (though I'm not an expert and I'm probably going to be corrected - in fact, I'd welcome futher explanation of this), and in observing human behaviours, beliefs, etc., it seems that placebo or mind-influencing-matter has some curious and persuasive effects.

Not really, QM involves the interaction of wave/particles. they are what they are.
Placebo effect may or may not be such.


But your point is valid anyway. If you had been pushed into firewalking as a complete unbeliever in it, you might well have experienced great pain and gone away having reaffirmed your belief that it's all dangerous nonsense (and all those other weirdos were just spaced out and pretending it didn't hurt that much and hiding the burns). Having now been converted, albeit through scientific explanation, you might firewalk and feel very little pain. Placebo and self-hypnosis are easily demonstrated, and there are theories about how and where in the body our thoughts influence the physical structure of cells and other bodily functions, so it is not quite so simple to deduce that those who expect to be burned still won't be because the physics says they can't be.

I am extremely doubtful, however, whether anyone could boil water at a different temperature by concentrating on it, psychically bend spoons or fly to the moon by mysticism. It's about how, why and under what conditions mind affects matter (particularly, is it just the body, or does physics suggest more weird interactions in quantum mechanics, etc.), and of course, none of that really affects the underlying 'metaphysical assumptions', as PM put it. The brain could be the cause of mind, and mind still affect the body...or even affect matter outside the body. So we might be scientifically convinced of the latter without it disproving the materialist view of subjectivity.

The ontology if reality is immaterial to the point!

:) ;)

[John Freestone]

Dancing David, I'm afraid I don't follow some of the things you've said, maybe because you were rather brief and I'm lacking the background info, but anyway, "Game theory?" got my attention.

I've been holding back from saying "But isn't all this materialism desperately depressing? How do people live with a view that virtually makes human beings zombies?"...that kind of thing. I didn't want to, partly because it invites the response that it's tough being realistic, but retreating into comfortable illusions isn't very mature.

What is interesting, though, is the resilience of a deep moral sense and a deep desire to see things clearly too, and Game Theory reminded me of it. Why do people balk at these sorts of suggestions? Is it merely because they're genetically programmed to? If we learn that by being self-centred, for instance, our society can reach a kind of economic harmony, I believe that many are quite happy to be affirmed in their self-interested behaviour, but our current global crisis has blown the comfortable lies of capitalism out of the water, and more and more people are developing a world-centric view.

Some of these moral feelings suggest a desire for goodness and fairness beyond what evolutionary pressures would be expected to give us. Of course, that world-centric perspective can be seen as the best bet for an individual's genes getting passed on, and we're just realising that if the mother ship goes down our genes will go too. But somehow I don't think that's the full picture. We balk at that suggestion too, and I think that human beings would sacrifice themselves for morality if they were convinced of the rightness of doing that.

It is maybe more of the intractable question. Deists could see the phenomena of 'goodness' or 'altruism' as evidence of a God; atheists say that this arises naturally from the self-propagation of systems (e.g. genes), which kind of takes the goodness out of goodness. Hope, however, springs eternal in the human heart, since the very revulsion one feels at being considered so mechanical and selfish reminds one that one is a human being with a desire to transcend whatever bestial instincts might have given rise to us. I think it is this desire-for-salvation being evidence for the reality of salvation that gives me faith in a Meaningful universe (which is just a half-hearted way of saying a God-given one). This is another feature of meditation, that it uncovers such realities behind the social injunctions. The immediate experience of compassion, a wish to transcend, gratitude for the gift of life, etc. come into view as more than mere biochemical products (even if they are also biochemical products - there is no need to lose the old paradigm to transcend it). Furthermore, the value-neutrality of science and its mathematical reduction of humanity into machines is increasingly of deep concern. Science may not always dehumanise us, or intend to, but it often does. The depth of moral outrage at being portrayed as so much complex biological mathematics reaffirms my belief that we are more than that...at least that we can choose to be more than that even if blind chance caused us.

[PixyMisa]

PM clarified these as twofold, that the material world is what is real, and that it is consistent. I'm not at all convinced that there aren't more, but those are two.
Yep. As far as I can see, everything else, including concepts like induction and falsifiability, stems from those two assumptions. I have a couple of books on the philosophy of science here on my desk, and if I ever get a chance to finish reading them I might be able to clarify that one way or the other.

The authodox scientific view, as I understand it, is that there is a real fact - the bp of water or the safety of firewalking - which is or is not discovered. The observer is irrelevant, except in whether he or she observes the facts. It is as though the observer could stand outside reality and measure it without influence, or overcoming whatever influence may be active by some means (repetition of experiments, multiplicity of observers communicating and agreeing about it, etc.).Well, not the current orthodox view, but the 19th century view, yes. Independent replication of experiments is intended to remove as many variables as possible, but there are some variables that you can't remove.

Another belief system might say that subject and object - the observer and observed - are more intimately connected, making such 'objective' observations theoretically problematic or even impossible.Yes, that is indeed another belief system.

I think some confusion arises from the extent to which the relativity argument is applied.Careful there. Relativity has a specific scientific meaning, involving motion and acceleration in space-time.

In other words, when we observe the very small, subatomic particles, etc., the observer does seem to have some influence (though I'm not an expert and I'm probably going to be corrected - in fact, I'd welcome futher explanation of this)Okay.

First up, the observer is irrelevant. Really.

There's a couple of aspects to this. This most straightforward is that you can't step outside the universe and examine it. To observe something, to measure it, you have to interact with it in some way. To study an atom, for example, we have to hit it with a particle such as a photon or an electron, and that interaction is going to change the atom in some way.

It's like you were studying the properties of billiard balls, but blindfolded and deaf, and the only tool you had to hand was more billiard balls.

and in observing human behaviours, beliefs, etc., it seems that placebo or mind-influencing-matter has some curious and persuasive effects.No, not really. The placebo effect is interesting and somewhat complicated in its details, but it's well understood, purely physical, and not at all magical.

Placebo and self-hypnosis are easily demonstrated, and there are theories about how and where in the body our thoughts influence the physical structure of cells and other bodily functions, so it is not quite so simple to deduce that those who expect to be burned still won't be because the physics says they can't be.Yes, it really is that simple.

Try walking across a bed of red-hot steel. It doesn't matter what you believe, your feet will be burned off.

I am extremely doubtful, however, whether anyone could boil water at a different temperature by concentrating on it, psychically bend spoons or fly to the moon by mysticism.Those are good things to be doubtful of. :)

It's about how, why and under what conditions mind affects matter (particularly, is it just the body, or does physics suggest more weird interactions in quantum mechanics, etc.), and of course, none of that really affects the underlying 'metaphysical assumptions', as PM put it. The brain could be the cause of mind, and mind still affect the body...Eh. You might be interested in experiments that show that conscious awareness of supposedly conscious decisions lags measurably behind activity that follows those decisions. I'll have to dig up some links for you, or maybe someone here has them handy. In short, what we think of as our minds is in at least some respects just an instant replay of what our mechanistic brains have already done.

The point of this is that mind does not effect matter. The brain controls most bodily functions, to a greater or lesser degree. The brain also generates the mind. The brain processes that generate the mind also have feedback to the brain processes that control the body.

or even affect matter outside the body.Nope. Not one example of that has ever been demonstrated, so we're pretty safe in dismissing it.

So we might be scientifically convinced of the latter without it disproving the materialist view of subjectivity.Eh?

[fls]

Eh. You might be interested in experiments that show that conscious awareness of supposedly conscious decisions lags measurably behind activity that follows those decisions. I'll have to dig up some links for you, or maybe someone here has them handy. In short, what we think of as our minds is in at least some respects just an instant replay of what our mechanistic brains have already done.

Benjamin Libet

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/106/3/623

Linda

[PixyMisa]

Thanks Linda!

[Stout]

Hi John...I can't think of any examples of atheist forces with superior firepower engaging a lesser armed spiritual force, but I can think of lots of examples of better armed forces + spirituality engaging weaker forces. Most notably, when the old world invaded the new world.

The natives may of appealed to their god's but clearly the gods weren't with them when the ships came. Maybe the Europeans just brought "better" gods;)

I agree on the connection between spirituality/religion and morality. I can't say that science, in general, is without morality but I'll admit it hasn't been made a priority. I don't see a problem with this, as science was never intended to explore moral/ethical ideas in the first place.

And then I get confused by the rest of your post ( #125 )

The boiling point of water is a function of pressure, really, we take the bp to be 100C, but vary the pressure over the water, and the boiling point changes. It's just cause and effect. I could cause the pressure to be so low as to cause water to boil at room temperature.

I just don't see where belief comes into it.

[PixyMisa]

I've been holding back from saying "But isn't all this materialism desperately depressing? How do people live with a view that virtually makes human beings zombies?"...that kind of thing. I didn't want to, partly because it invites the response that it's tough being realistic, but retreating into comfortable illusions isn't very mature.
No, that's not the answer.

The answer is that materialism doesn't change what people are. Materialism is a metaphysical position. People are people.

What is interesting, though, is the resilience of a deep moral sense and a deep desire to see things clearly too, and Game Theory reminded me of it. Why do people balk at these sorts of suggestions?Sorry, that's not clear. Why do people balk at what?

Is it merely because they're genetically programmed to?Not merely that; it's also partly learned.

If we learn that by being self-centred, for instance, our society can reach a kind of economic harmony, I believe that many are quite happy to be affirmed in their self-interested behaviour, but our current global crisis has blown the comfortable lies of capitalism out of the water, and more and more people are developing a world-centric view."Comfortable lies of capitalism"? That sounds like you don't understand capitalism any more than you understand science.

Some of these moral feelings suggest a desire for goodness and fairness beyond what evolutionary pressures would be expected to give us.Really? What, specifically?

Of course, that world-centric perspective can be seen as the best bet for an individual's genes getting passed on, and we're just realising that if the mother ship goes down our genes will go too. But somehow I don't think that's the full picture. We balk at that suggestion tooBalk at what suggestion? That morality is partly due to calculated self-interest? Why would I balk at that? It's not only reasonable, but obvious that this is the case.

and I think that human beings would sacrifice themselves for morality if they were convinced of the rightness of doing that.Yes. This does happen. Whether it's a reasonable thing to do is another question.

It is maybe more of the intractable question. Deists could see the phenomena of 'goodness' or 'altruism' as evidence of a God; atheists say that this arises naturally from the self-propagation of systems (e.g. genes), which kind of takes the goodness out of goodness.For one, we see altruism in insects, which makes us wonder which species is really made in God's image.

For another, without going into the whole free will thing, people make choices. The fact that we understand at least part of the reason people tend to make the specific choices they do doesn't change the fact that they make those choices.

Hope, however, springs eternal in the human heart, since the very revulsion one feels at being considered so mechanical and selfish reminds one that one is a human being with a desire to transcend whatever bestial instincts might have given rise to us.Um, no.

I think it is this desire-for-salvation being evidence for the reality of salvation that gives me faith in a Meaningful universe (which is just a half-hearted way of saying a God-given one).Argh.

That is so incredibly wrong-headed that it hurts even to think about it.

I think it is this desire-for-a-strawberry-cheesecake-the-size-of-the-Moon being evidence for the reality of lunar-scale cheesecakes that gives me faith in a cheese-cakey universe.

This is another feature of meditation, that it uncovers such realities behind the social injunctions.And your evidence of this is? Please list the realities behind the social injunctions that have been uncovered by meditation as opposed to rational thought.

The immediate experience of compassion, a wish to transcend, gratitude for the gift of life, etc. come into view as more than mere biochemical products (even if they are also biochemical products - there is no need to lose the old paradigm to transcend it).Nope. Pure wishful thinking. As I noted earlier, your supposed transcendent paradigm is materialism. Nothing has changed.

Furthermore, the value-neutrality of science and its mathematical reduction of humanity into machines is increasingly of deep concern.People may be machines, but they are wonderful machines.

Science may not always dehumanise us, or intend to, but it often does.Only if you have very little imagination and no sense of wonder.

The depth of moral outrage at being portrayed as so much complex biological mathematics reaffirms my belief that we are more than that...at least that we can choose to be more than that even if blind chance caused us.Again, pure wishful thinking. Just because you don't like something doesn't make the converse any more true. You might as well clap if you believe in fairies.:fairy:

[John Freestone]

Yep. As far as I can see, everything else, including concepts like induction and falsifiability, stems from those two assumptions. I have a couple of books on the philosophy of science here on my desk, and if I ever get a chance to finish reading them I might be able to clarify that one way or the other.Ok, but don't count them on my account. The counting of things was never quite what I was talking about in any of this. In fact, you might say it was half the problem.

Well, not the current orthodox view, but the 19th century view, yes. Independent replication of experiments is intended to remove as many variables as possible, but there are some variables that you can't remove.You don't offer to enlighten me concering the difference betwen the 19th-C and the 21st-C orthodox views, but no matter. I'm pleased you acknowledge that replication of experiments does not remove all variables.

Yes, that is indeed another belief system.Does your use of the word 'another' here indicate that the scientific paradigm (choose your own century, please) is a belief system. What I was criticising was the common view that science isn't one, it is just the view of reality. I'm sorry to press you on this, but some of what you say seems to contradict other things. One minute you're saying that my alternative viewpoint is just plain wrong, which suggests that you, presumably via science, have a pure vision of reality, the next you say that science is nothing to do with reality, the next that it is 'another' belief system based on 'metaphysical assumptions' and acknowledge that there are other belief systems, the next that it is just a mathematical model for making certain predictions in the 'real world'. I begin to wonder if I have imagined these inconsistencies in your philosophy of a consistent material universe, or if you don't notice them, or are avoiding noticing them. I am also made suspicious by your habit of chopping my explanation of complicated ideas into byte-size :D chunks and giving minimal refutations, considering which it is also psychologically rather interesting that you make such a big fuss about my use of 'wholism' rather than 'holism', actually to the point of saying that all the dictionaries in which the first form is found are simply wrong, as are any viewpoints at odds with your own generally.

Careful there. Relativity has a specific scientific meaning, involving motion and acceleration in space-time.Yes, I know. I didn't just fall off the last UFO to pass by. People often imagine what another person is trying to express through this imperfect medium called language. Or, to put it another way, your spellings and definitions are not always the correct ones. Postmodern understanding of language has been around for I don't care how long now it's a long time and if you're going to see things only from your limited viewpoint you will always remain :boxedin:

First up, the observer is irrelevant. Really.

There's a couple of aspects to this. This most straightforward is that you can't step outside the universe and examine it. To observe something, to measure it, you have to interact with it in some way. To study an atom, for example, we have to hit it with a particle such as a photon or an electron, and that interaction is going to change the atom in some way.

It's like you were studying the properties of billiard balls, but blindfolded and deaf, and the only tool you had to hand was more billiard balls.I am trying to understand why that last bit doesn't (in your view, apparently) support the intractable connection of subject and object, since it is the kind of argument I would use for this. I guess the difference must be that when you say "you can't step outside the universe and examine it", the "you" you're referring to is a bundle of particles, which are involved with the particles of the universe generally. That would fit with what you seem to be expressing, a non-dual view of pure matter. Yes? Because, of course, I was using the "you" of the subjective, mental, internal experience, which you probably consider illusory or something - I don't know. Anyway, it's interesting. Which ever 'you' you use, the subject or bundle of particle-waves, the problem of its intrinsic envelopment in the universe for any purely objective science is what I was pointing out. In simple terms, the 'objectivity' that science strives for, it must concede, is ultimately impossible, that's all, either because you-soul-psyches can't stand outside the universe or, if we are just matter, you-emergent-system-information-biocybernetic-thing can't.

No, not really. The placebo effect is interesting and somewhat complicated in its details, but it's well understood, purely physical, and not at all magical.Yes, the placebo effect is interesting and somewhat complicated in its details, but it's partially understood, crucially NOT NECESSARILY purely physical (though I understand that it will be once you define the universe as purely physical, which you have), and whether it is magical at all will depend on our definition. My worldview includes the self-evident reality of my personal subjective consciousness, which in one sense seems pretty magical to start with.

Try walking across a bed of red-hot steel. It doesn't matter what you believe, your feet will be burned off.Again I can't help but wonder if this involves some inconsistency in your view. You seem to acknowledge placebo one moment, yet this statement seems to imply that the physical reality is not going to be changed by what we think (given that you have taken an extreme case).

Have to nip out. I'll respond to the rest of your posts later.

[JoeEllison]

You seem to acknowledge placebo one moment, yet this statement seems to imply that the physical reality is not going to be changed by what we think (given that you have taken an extreme case).

Obviously, you misunderstand placebo, the way you (intentionally?) misunderstand pretty much everything you comment on. Your religious anti-science bias has clouded your ability to be rational. You should really consider learning a couple of things, and trying again when you're a little more informed.
I mean, you aren't actually claiming that science is a "belief system", are you?

[Stout]

I mean, you aren't actually claiming that science is a "belief system", are you?

That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. It's not an idea that's new to me, I've seen it used in threads on Intelligent Design before and I'm curious how that type of thinking can arise.

My first example got shot down ( I think ) , the one about understand in the mechanics of firewalking leading to my "belief" that I could do it without any special training.

Now I'm wondering whether speculating on future scientific successes might qualify as "belief"

As an example....A hundred years ago had someone proposed that man will build a spaceship and walk on the moon, he would have been laughed at. Now had that same man who made the proposal simply given up in the face of ridicule and abandoned his belief, he may never have tried to influence his son to study science in the hopes that son might devote his career to designing rockets.

[Nick227]

Objective science is entirely conceptual. This is because the subject-object divide is entirely conceptual. It cannot be demonstrated to be true. It's an assumption. Personal identity is conceptual. One might consider the experience of having a personal identity valid, but it cannot be substantiated through observing any actual phenomena. It is entirely conceptual.

Because it is wholy conceptual, science cannot investigate the nature of reality. It can only investigate relationships between apparent phenomena. As a tool for making life easier for people, science is bloody great. As an means to investigate reality, it is utterly useless, and it is entirely delusional to believe otherwise.

If anyone feels they can empirically demonstrate personal identity - and ergo the subject-object divide, objectivity, and science - please do so.

Nick

[John Freestone]

Whew! Thanks Nick. The way we construct the argument is different, but it amounts to the same conclusion, that science does not investigate the real world 'objectively'. I would probably prefer to offer this as a possibility, or a possibility that I strongly suspect is true, rather than an absolute statement of fact, but even the possibility is refuted by the physicalists, they are so under the spell of their 'rigorous' definitions, scrupulous measurement and experimental repetition. Actually, you don't exactly put it as fact, but challenge anyone who feels able to prove otherwise. Interestingly, one of the earlier stages of insight in meditation is often reported as seeing through the habitual separation of observer and observed, and I can attest to it myself.

Stout, I hope I didn't shoot you down in flames. I don't remember doing so, and found your post a good contribution to the discussion. I think that to give up on the valuable information and technological improvements science can undoubtedly provide would be silly, and that this is not a necessary result of understanding that science is a belief system. As PM has clarified, science is based on certain 'metaphysical assumptions'. It seems reasonable to me to consider this a belief system, and that such axioms are arbitrary (decided, rather than discovered or given in nature itself) and that there are other belief systems based on other axiomatic assumptions.

The problem is that SOME scientists are so sure that having defined the world as matter, investigating it as though it were matter, and coming up with material results, this means that they have established the axioms as true, or, as PM suggested, that they would change them if they proved untrue, which is like a man walking round a large box saying there's only an inside, but if he ever found an outside he'd change his mind, but still being so sold on the idea that he's inside an infinite box that he never notices the walls or tries to see over them. Funny thing is that if you define the world as utterly spiritual, all the matter being explained as maya (illusion), it all makes about as much sense in its own internal logic too...which observation adds weight to the idea that we project our concepts outwards.

PM, I said I'd reply to the rest of your post:
Eh. You might be interested in experiments that show that conscious awareness of supposedly conscious decisions lags measurably behind activity that follows those decisions. I'll have to dig up some links for you, or maybe someone here has them handy. In short, what we think of as our minds is in at least some respects just an instant replay of what our mechanistic brains have already done.

The point of this is that mind does not effect matter. The brain controls most bodily functions, to a greater or lesser degree. The brain also generates the mind. The brain processes that generate the mind also have feedback to the brain processes that control the body.I'm aware of the research, and here is one example of the way we keep reinterpreting data in terms of our current worldview: if one is a scientific materialist one sees this as indicating that the machinery is grinding away mindlessly taking action in our bodies, and popping the illusion of prior intention into our consciousness (that place where the biocybernetics do the reflecting...?...); if, on the other hand you happened to believe in an ever-present, all-powerful Being, you could conclude just as easily that His/Her intention acted prior to our humble conscious knowledge as mere mortals ("Thy Will not mine, O Lord"). The experiments could suggest something about our free will, but not necessarily the dead quantum cogs you seem to infer.

Finally, you say that no thoughts have ever been seen to affect physical reality. I remind you of what I said about working out the extent of various relationships like placebo and mind-affecting-matter. Consider then where almost anything in the cultural environment originated, from your house to those little reflectors left on the moon so we could fire lasers at it, the internet we're using to discuss this...it all came into being from people's ideas, their thoughts. Ok, we are probably in agreement that I can't move my mug by psychokinesis, but the possibility that we project our beliefs onto reality to some extent suggests that powers that science would consider 'supernatural' might exist for those who are not so bound by the same mental constructs as you and I are, which is basically what much of the mystical literature describes: the development of unusual psychic powers. I am developing more trust of the Eastern mystical tradition as I prove the lower (still bordering on supernatural) contentions in it for myself in my own subjective experience. I have to admit that this, though, for me, is one of the very weakest parts of such an alternative view, and I am very well acquainted with all the cold-reading, skewed perception, etc. that can leave vulnerable people believing they can jump off buildings and fly, or that they're psychic because someone 'always' phones when they've 'just' thought of them...

Weird that, though, isn't it, how those people shape their internal, subjective reality according to their belief systems. (Go on, say "No").

[Dancing David]

Dancing David, I'm afraid I don't follow some of the things you've said, maybe because you were rather brief and I'm lacking the background info, but anyway, "Game theory?" got my attention.

In most of human existance there was a greater benefit to altruism than not. Life is not a zero sum game, the creation of wealth for others is the creation of wealth for the self. Until agriculture and storage technologies this would be the case. Even in a modern society, the benefit of the greater population benefits the self, one may always loose ones benefits and have to depend upon the public weal.


I've been holding back from saying "But isn't all this materialism desperately depressing?

No life is a wonder and a marvel, that is all I need to know. It sure beats the alternatives.

How do people live with a view that virtually makes human beings zombies?"...that kind of thing. I didn't want to, partly because it invites the response that it's tough being realistic, but retreating into comfortable illusions isn't very mature.

I see it as a moot point, life is what it is a wonderful thing , most of the time.

What is interesting, though, is the resilience of a deep moral sense and a deep desire to see things clearly too, and Game Theory reminded me of it.

There is also strong social modeling in humans, and the history of humans has been to revove the criminals from the breeding pool.

Why do people balk at these sorts of suggestions? Is it merely because they're genetically programmed to?

Cultural, social and personal bias?

If we learn that by being self-centred, for instance, our society can reach a kind of economic harmony, I believe that many are quite happy to be affirmed in their self-interested behaviour, but our current global crisis has blown the comfortable lies of capitalism out of the water, and more and more people are developing a world-centric view.

I hope so, but then I am a reformed socialist.


Some of these moral feelings suggest a desire for goodness and fairness beyond what evolutionary pressures would be expected to give us.

I don't know social modeling and associative learning are powerful things.

Of course, that world-centric perspective can be seen as the best bet for an individual's genes getting passed on, and we're just realising that if the mother ship goes down our genes will go too. But somehow I don't think that's the full picture. We balk at that suggestion too, and I think that human beings would sacrifice themselves for morality if they were convinced of the rightness of doing that.

Well sometimes personal self intrest will win out, especialy if one is trained to think that one is superior do to social status.



It is maybe more of the intractable question. Deists could see the phenomena of 'goodness' or 'altruism' as evidence of a God; atheists say that this arises naturally from the self-propagation of systems (e.g. genes), which kind of takes the goodness out of goodness.

Words are words,.

What is a bad man?
The good man's charge
Lao Tzu

Hope, however, springs eternal in the human heart, since the very revulsion one feels at being considered so mechanical and selfish reminds one that one is a human being with a desire to transcend whatever bestial instincts might have given rise to us.

It does not bother me, as a trauma survivor is resolves a lot of issues.

I think it is this desire-for-salvation being evidence for the reality of salvation that gives me faith in a Meaningful universe (which is just a half-hearted way of saying a God-given one). This is another feature of meditation, that it uncovers such realities behind the social injunctions. The immediate experience of compassion, a wish to transcend, gratitude for the gift of life, etc. come into view as more than mere biochemical products (even if they are also biochemical products - there is no need to lose the old paradigm to transcend it). Furthermore, the value-neutrality of science and its mathematical reduction of humanity into machines is increasingly of deep concern. Science may not always dehumanise us, or intend to, but it often does. The depth of moral outrage at being portrayed as so much complex biological mathematics reaffirms my belief that we are more than that...at least that we can choose to be more than that even if blind chance caused us.


More later.

[JoeEllison]

Now I'm wondering whether speculating on future scientific successes might qualify as "belief"

As an example....A hundred years ago had someone proposed that man will build a spaceship and walk on the moon, he would have been laughed at. Now had that same man who made the proposal simply given up in the face of ridicule and abandoned his belief, he may never have tried to influence his son to study science in the hopes that son might devote his career to designing rockets.
Speculation based on extending current trends and/or technologies into future isn't "belief", it is extrapolation. There were already rockets back then. :D

[JoeEllison]

Objective science is entirely conceptual. This is because the subject-object divide is entirely conceptual. It cannot be demonstrated to be true. It's an assumption. Personal identity is conceptual. One might consider the experience of having a personal identity valid, but it cannot be substantiated through observing any actual phenomena. It is entirely conceptual.

Because it is wholy conceptual, science cannot investigate the nature of reality. It can only investigate relationships between apparent phenomena. As a tool for making life easier for people, science is bloody great. As an means to investigate reality, it is utterly useless, and it is entirely delusional to believe otherwise.

If anyone feels they can empirically demonstrate personal identity - and ergo the subject-object divide, objectivity, and science - please do so.

Nick
That's nice. Can you imagine another way of going about the problem, in a meaningful way? Because, from my perspective, you have basically created a giant impenetrable brick wall. That's fine, as far as it goes... but you cannot go any further.

[JoeEllison]

Ok, we are probably both in agreement that I can't move my mug by psychokinesis, but the possibility that we project our beliefs onto reality to some extent (as described above) suggests to me that the possibility of powers that science would consider 'supernatural' might exist for those who are not so bound by the same mental constructs as we are.
There's no problem with the idea of a "possibility," the problem is that possibilities are pretty much useless. They don't really do anything, besides lay there and twitch a bit when you poke them.

[Nick227]

That's nice. Can you imagine another way of going about the problem, in a meaningful way? Because, from my perspective, you have basically created a giant impenetrable brick wall. That's fine, as far as it goes... but you cannot go any further.

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide. Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged. The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic. From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds. Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.

Nick

[Nick227]

Whew! Thanks Nick. The way we construct the argument is different, but it amounts to the same conclusion, that science does not investigate the real world 'objectively'. I would probably prefer to offer this as a possibility, or a possibility that I strongly suspect is true, rather than an absolute statement of fact, but even the possibility is refuted by the physicalists, they are so under the spell of their 'rigorous' definitions, scrupulous measurement and experimental repetition. Actually, you don't exactly put it as fact, but challenge anyone who feels able to prove otherwise. Interestingly, one of the earlier stages of insight in meditation is often reported as seeing through the habitual separation of observer and observed, and I can attest to it myself.

Hi John,

Well, I would say that science does investigate the world objectively, but that objectivity is merely a construct, something which, as you point out, mystics have been saying for aeons.

There seems to be a Tinkerbell mindset these days amongst many scientists, and those who are big fans of objectivity - that if you can just get everyone to believe that objectivity is real then it will become so.

Nick

[Nick227]

Whew! Thanks Nick. The way we construct the argument is different, but it amounts to the same conclusion, that science does not investigate the real world 'objectively'. I would probably prefer to offer this as a possibility, or a possibility that I strongly suspect is true, rather than an absolute statement of fact, but even the possibility is refuted by the physicalists, they are so under the spell of their 'rigorous' definitions, scrupulous measurement and experimental repetition. Actually, you don't exactly put it as fact, but challenge anyone who feels able to prove otherwise. Interestingly, one of the earlier stages of insight in meditation is often reported as seeing through the habitual separation of observer and observed, and I can attest to it myself.

Hi John,

Well, I would say that science does investigate the world objectively, but that objectivity is merely a construct, something which, as you point out, mystics have been saying for aeons.

There seems to be a Tinkerbell mindset these days amongst many scientists, and those who are big fans of objectivity - that if you can just get everyone to believe that objectivity is real then it will become so.

Nick

[JoeEllison]

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide. Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged. The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic. From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds. Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.

NickMy point is that if you claim that reality is being viewed through a "mental construct", or if you claim that reality IS a "mental construct," what you wind up with is an intellectual dead end, unless you can propose a means for stepping outside of the universe and/or self for a more objective view.

Subjectivity is inherent in any viewpoint, by definition. Science seeks to minimize that subjectivity, in order to learn about the universe. It seems to me that some others seek to expand subjectivity, in order to allow themselves the freedom to pretend that their more fanciful/delusional worldviews are more valid.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide. Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged.

I assume you think there is such a thing as the mind (something that can construct the experience of the subject-object divide)?

The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.

I have to disagree somewhat. Scientists talk about objectivity in the pragmatic sense, i.e., trying to be as objective as possible (fully knowing it’s an ideal never to be reached). It’s not challenged because there’s nothing to do about it, except conducting research in a “less subjective” manner. It’s probably one of the first things you stumble across when learning science. If you talk about self-examination as in examining how everything about the world is “your” experience of it (i.e. “the map is not the territory”), then it’s also pretty self evident. I’m not sure why anyone wouldn’t recognize this. It only seems to be new stuff for people who criticise science in order to promote their own subjective worldview (they are of course hopelessly late in their usually trivial recognition).

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic. From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds. Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.

I would say that most scientist ascribe to some form of monism. I wouldn’t, however, call the experience of duality artificial; it’s still a natural part of how we humans experience reality; perhaps even more natural than the experience of “oneness” or whatever you’d like to call it. It’s such a natural part of our reality that medicine and our gadgets seem to work quite well on their own.

[lupus_in_fabula]

My point is that if you claim that reality is being viewed through a "mental construct", or if you claim that reality IS a "mental construct," what you wind up with is an intellectual dead end, unless you can propose a means for stepping outside of the universe and/or self for a more objective view.

Subjectivity is inherent in any viewpoint, by definition. Science seeks to minimize that subjectivity, in order to learn about the universe. It seems to me that some others seek to expand subjectivity, in order to allow themselves the freedom to pretend that their more fanciful/delusional worldviews are more valid.

Sorry Joe, you already said much of what I did. I didn’t see your post when I was writing my own.

[Stout]

Hi John..maybe shooting down my idea wasn't the best way to put it, after all I did say i didn't understand the rest of your post. But if my firewalking and belief that I can just go do it based on "belief" generated by my knowledge of the process isn't an example of science being a belief then...

I tried the visionary approach, with the guy who envisions space travel based on his current knowledge of,,well, fireworks and following that "belief" or vision by encouraging his son to experiment. If that's not how science can called a belief then....

I'm out of ideas...

Except the one that says that in order to accept the idea that science is a belief, then one has to already subscribe to another belief system that one feels trumps science in the quest to determine what the "meaning of life" really is.

I don't subscribe to any belief system myself. Sure there's a bit of appeal to a higher power going on sometimes in my life. It's pretty minor though, like throwing the odd coin in a wishing well, or crossing my fingers but what I'm really doing is appealing to luck.

I'm looking at science as THE way to explain the way the world works by default but I can't say I'm comfortable calling it any sort of belief simply because science admits when it's wrong. Sometimes, science gets caught by other science and proved wrong, remember those cold fusion guys ? but in the long run, the bad science gets overrun by the good science.

I like that:)

Belief never seems to change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and I'm rather concerned about this. Why is belief so intent on asserting it's mastery over the world as we know it yet at the same time. refusing to demonstrate this mastery when asked to?

I've heard a lot of arguments about this, from the "presence of doubters" to "the universe doesn't feel you should know these things" to "your motivations for wanting to access this information are immoral" that I'm siding with the idea that these higher powers don't want to demonstrate their prowess because.....they can't.

I can understand belief playing a vital role in some-one's emotional happiness, and I understand the idea of belief being a motivator to bring about change so I'll give a nod in it's direction for having some value to some people. It's when it crosses the line into territory that knowledge has proven to be false, and continually asserts it's dominance over knowledge that belief can get....well...annoying at times.

After all, didn't the Bible teach a geocentric universe ? only to be proven, centuries later, to be false. Now most Christians go with the round earth idea, contrary to the Scriptures but they didn't adopt this idea easily. There was a lot of kicking and screaming IIRC, but knowledge won out in the end, didn't it ?

[Nick227]

My point is that if you claim that reality is being viewed through a "mental construct", or if you claim that reality IS a "mental construct," what you wind up with is an intellectual dead end, unless you can propose a means for stepping outside of the universe and/or self for a more objective view.

Hi Joe,

I would say more that reality is being processed through a mental construct. Our mind constructs the myriad situations it encounters as though there was a limited observer present and responds through the same filter.

You might feel that the reality of the situation represents a "dead end" or a "brick wall" but personally I don't see that this really justifies spending a lifetime lying to yourself.

Subjectivity is inherent in any viewpoint, by definition. Science seeks to minimize that subjectivity, in order to learn about the universe. It seems to me that some others seek to expand subjectivity, in order to allow themselves the freedom to pretend that their more fanciful/delusional worldviews are more valid.

Objectivity is totally fine. It's just good to remember that it is mentally constructed and not a priori real. Plenty of people are emotionally afraid of the intensity of objectivity and prefer to hide in subjectivity, this is true I'd say.

Nick

[Nick227]

I assume you think there is such a thing as the mind (something that can construct the experience of the subject-object divide)?

For sure.



I have to disagree somewhat. Scientists talk about objectivity in the pragmatic sense, i.e., trying to be as objective as possible (fully knowing it’s an ideal never to be reached). It’s not challenged because there’s nothing to do about it, except conducting research in a “less subjective” manner. It’s probably one of the first things you stumble across when learning science. If you talk about self-examination as in examining how everything about the world is “your” experience of it (i.e. “the map is not the territory”), then it’s also pretty self evident. I’m not sure why anyone wouldn’t recognize this. It only seems to be new stuff for people who criticise science in order to promote their own subjective worldview (they are of course hopelessly late in their usually trivial recognition).

Well, what I meant when I said "it's not challenged" is that there is no limited observer, there is no personal "I", no personal identity. The world exists, the body exists, thoughts exist, feelings exist. But there is no evidence to suggest that any of these things belong to any limited entity. The presence of personal identity cannot be substantiated empirically. It is simply an unchallenged assumption the mind makes. And from this unchallenged assumption, objectivity arises, and with it science.



I would say that most scientist ascribe to some form of monism. I wouldn’t, however, call the experience of duality artificial; it’s still a natural part of how we humans experience reality; perhaps even more natural than the experience of “oneness” or whatever you’d like to call it. It’s such a natural part of our reality that medicine and our gadgets seem to work quite well on their own.

Yes, I would agree. The experience of duality certainly arises and can be bloody good fun. I've not met so many scientists who ascribed to monism though. Perhaps I should hang out in different circles! Yes, the medicine and gadgets do seem to work.

Nick

[69dodge]

Funny thing is that if you define the world as utterly spiritual, all the matter being explained as maya (illusion), it all makes about as much sense in its own internal logic too...

But what difference does it make whether we choose to call matter "matter", or to call it "the illusion of matter"? We're still left with the problem of discovering how it behaves, or how it appears to behave, as the case may be.

Calling it illusory is not an explanation. Neither is calling it real, to be sure. "Illusory" and "real" are just words. A detailed description of its behavior, such as is given by a scientific theory, is an explanation.

PixyMisa says that someone who walks across a red-hot slab of iron will burn his feet off. I assume you agree. You say that patients sometimes benefit from being given placebos. I assume he agrees.

So, what are we arguing about, exactly?

[PixyMisa]

Objective science is entirely conceptual. This is because the subject-object divide is entirely conceptual.
What subject-object divide?

It cannot be demonstrated to be true. It's an assumption. Personal identity is conceptual. One might consider the experience of having a personal identity valid, but it cannot be substantiated through observing any actual phenomena. It is entirely conceptual.
Nope. It's a commonly observed phenomenon.

Because it is wholy conceptual, science cannot investigate the nature of reality. It can only investigate relationships between apparent phenomena. As a tool for making life easier for people, science is bloody great. As an means to investigate reality, it is utterly useless, and it is entirely delusional to believe otherwise.
Relationships between apparent phenomena are all we have access to. Therefore there is no basis for stating that these do not represent reality.

If anyone feels they can empirically demonstrate personal identity - and ergo the subject-object divide, objectivity, and science - please do so.
What subject-object divide?

[JoeEllison]

Hi Joe,

I would say more that reality is being processed through a mental construct. Our mind constructs the myriad situations it encounters as though there was a limited observer present and responds through the same filter.

You might feel that the reality of the situation represents a "dead end" or a "brick wall" but personally I don't see that this really justifies spending a lifetime lying to yourself.

Where have I "lied to myself"?

[PixyMisa]

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide.
Speaking in terms of human learning, sure. In terms of science, there is no subject-object divide: That's assumption one. Metaphysical naturalism, hence methodological naturalism.

Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged.
Why do you say it's "constructed by the mind"? Seems to me that it would be entirely more reasonable to say that its construction is part of the construction of the mind.

The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.
That might be interesting to you and to clinical psychologists, but it has no relevance to the system of science.

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic.
You can assume that. It's a reasonable assumption. You can't demonstrate it, though.

From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds.
What subject-object separation?

Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.
Nick, remember this, if you remember anything: Science doesn't care what you believe. So long as you follow the rules, you can carry out valid scientific research even if your personal metaphysics makes TimeCube guy look like Euclid. And whether you follow the rules or not, the results that science produces work.

Your "mentally constructed artifical framework" is completely irrelevant.

[Nick227]

Speaking in terms of human learning, sure. In terms of science, there is no subject-object divide: That's assumption one. Metaphysical naturalism, hence methodological naturalism.

Hi PM,

Are you saying science disputes the existence of a limited observer, of a sense of separation? It's a new one on me if so, or am I misunderstanding you? How are you going to have objectivity without separation?


Why do you say it's "constructed by the mind"? Seems to me that it would be entirely more reasonable to say that its construction is part of the construction of the mind.

Well, one might perhaps say that the experience of having a personal identity is natural in that it may arise as a result of a natural brain process. No one has, as far as I'm aware, located this process as yet, but with the way brain research is advancing I'd say it's possible in the future.

I say "constructed by the mind" because this means of describing it leaves room for the deeper, non-dual state.


That might be interesting to you and to clinical psychologists, but it has no relevance to the system of science.

My experience is that most scientists assume the primacy of the subject-object divide without question. They just take it as a given. It is not a given, it is a temporary mental construct, as one very quickly realises when it dissipates, even if only for a short while.


You can assume that. It's a reasonable assumption. You can't demonstrate it, though.

Well, yes and no! In non-duality you can demonstrate anything but it no longer has such a sense of meaning attached to it. The demonstration is just going on like everything else.



Nick, remember this, if you remember anything: Science doesn't care what you believe. So long as you follow the rules, you can carry out valid scientific research even if your personal metaphysics makes TimeCube guy look like Euclid. And whether you follow the rules or not, the results that science produces work.

I like science. It makes good toasters. It's very exciting but it cannot achieve anything really satisfying, I find, because it is simply proceeding from an unconscious assumption.

Nick

[Nick227]

Nope. It's a commonly observed phenomenon.

Can you substantiate personal identity scientifically?

Nick

[Nick227]

Where have I "lied to myself"?

Hi Joe,

What I understood from your earlier comments, below, was that if your investigation of the nature of reality reveals to you a brick wall, or a dead end, then you should believe something different because this is not satisfying to the intellect. I would consider this choosing to believe a lie.

Am I not following you right?

Nick

My point is that if you claim that reality is being viewed through a "mental construct", or if you claim that reality IS a "mental construct," what you wind up with is an intellectual dead end

Because, from my perspective, you have basically created a giant impenetrable brick wall. That's fine, as far as it goes... but you cannot go any further.

[JoeEllison]

Hi Joe,

What I understood from your earlier comments, below, was that if your investigation of the nature of reality reveals to you a brick wall, or a dead end, then you should believe something different because this is not satisfying to the intellect. I would consider this choosing to believe a lie.

Am I not following you right?

Nick
No, you're exactly backwards in fact.

If your reasoning leads you to a brick wall, to a place where you have reached the limits of possible knowledge, the only "lie" is to claim that you somehow know what's behind that wall.

The claim that there is no objective reality, that subjectivity somehow leads to a state where we cannot make any objective claims about reality, is just that sort of brick wall. We accept the assumption of an objective reality, not because we know it to be absolute "truth", but because it is the only assumption that can lead to anything useful. If we can never be truly objective, the best we can hope for is a "shared subjectivity," a commonality of experience and a repeatability of experimental results.

And, here's the kicker: anyone who rejects the assumption of a shared, common objective reality? [b]They have absolutely nothing more to add to any discussion, because of that rejection.[/i] That's your dead end, full stop, I hope you were wearing your seat belt. :D

[PixyMisa]

Can you substantiate personal identity scientifically?
Yes.

[Nick227]

No, you're exactly backwards in fact.

If your reasoning leads you to a brick wall, to a place where you have reached the limits of possible knowledge, the only "lie" is to claim that you somehow know what's behind that wall.

The claim that there is no objective reality, that subjectivity somehow leads to a state where we cannot make any objective claims about reality, is just that sort of brick wall.

It is not so much that there does not exist an objective reality. It is simply that it is constructed by the mind from a non-dual reality. There is no observable difference between them, simply that the mind creates the objective version through the use of the subject-object filter. It manufactures a reality according to an unconscious process which leads it to believe in limited selfhood. When awareness rises and you become aware of the unconscious process, this is evident.


We accept the assumption of an objective reality, not because we know it to be absolute "truth", but because it is the only assumption that can lead to anything useful. If we can never be truly objective, the best we can hope for is a "shared subjectivity," a commonality of experience and a repeatability of experimental results.

The assumption of limited selfhood, of a personal identity, takes place because it has not been tested. It has not been examined. When it is examined it is revealed to be unsubstantiable.

You can demonstrate this for yourself by attempting to find scientific evidence of the existence of personal identity. There is a body, there are feelings, there are thoughts. Can you scientifically demonstrate that these things are yours, that they have possession?

And, here's the kicker: anyone who rejects the assumption of a shared, common objective reality? [b]They have absolutely nothing more to add to any discussion, because of that rejection.[/i] That's your dead end, full stop, I hope you were wearing your seat belt. :D

I don't reject the assumption of a shared objective reality. I am simply pointing out that it is being created by the mind because it has not yet examined itself sufficiently.

Nick

[PixyMisa]

Are you saying science disputes the existence of a limited observer, of a sense of separation?
No, that's not what I'm saying. As I've said, we can see exactly that in flatworms.

It's a new one on me if so, or am I misunderstanding you? How are you going to have objectivity without separation?
Easy. The subjective is not disjoint from the objective; it's a subset.

Well, one might perhaps say that the experience of having a personal identity is natural in that it may arise as a result of a natural brain process. No one has, as far as I'm aware, located this process as yet, but with the way brain research is advancing I'd say it's possible in the future.
When you say "no one has ... located this process", we know perfectly well where the processes involved are: The brain. You are making two assumptions here: First, that the experience of personal identity is a single process, and second, that that process is localised to a specific part of the brain. Neither one of these is necessarily true.

I say "constructed by the mind" because this means of describing it leaves room for the deeper, non-dual state.
But it doesn't make any sense. What is it you think the mind is, here?

My experience is that most scientists assume the primacy of the subject-object divide without question.
No. That's what you think is true, but it's not true.

They just take it as a given.
No.

It is not a given, it is a temporary mental construct, as one very quickly realises when it dissipates, even if only for a short while.
What do you mean by that? In what way is it a temporary mental construct, and how does it dissipate?

Well, yes and no!
No.

In non-duality you can demonstrate anything but it no longer has such a sense of meaning attached to it.
No.

The demonstration is just going on like everything else.
And no.

You can assume monism. You can't demonstrate it. You can assert that so far, your observations are consistent with monism, but that just means that so far, your observations are consistent with monism.

I like science. It makes good toasters. It's very exciting but it cannot achieve anything really satisfying, I find, because it is simply proceeding from an unconscious assumption.
Which simply proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no unconscious assumption; there is, instead, a pair of well-understood assumptions. You think for some reason that scientists and philosphers of science aren't aware of this. It's true that scientists don't give it a great deal of day-to-day thought, but that's because there's no need to. You make those assumptions, and off you go. Science works. It explains the universe, in a way that nothing else can begin to emulate. You don't need to go back and re-examine those assumptions because there's no indication that there's anything wrong with them.

[Nick227]

Yes.

Can you share your demonstration, that it might be objectively validated?

Nick

[JoeEllison]

It is not so much that there does not exist an objective reality. It is simply that it is constructed by the mind from a non-dual reality. There is no observable difference between them, simply that the mind creates the objective version through the use of the subject-object filter. It manufactures a reality according to an unconscious process which leads it to believe in limited selfhood. When awareness rises and you become aware of the unconscious process, this is evident.




The assumption of limited selfhood, of a personal identity, takes place because it has not been tested. It has not been examined. When it is examined it is revealed to be unsubstantiable.

You can demonstrate this for yourself by attempting to find scientific evidence of the existence of personal identity. There is a body, there are feelings, there are thoughts. Can you scientifically demonstrate that these things are yours, that they have possession?



I don't reject the assumption of a shared objective reality. I am simply pointing out that it is being created by the mind because it has not yet examined itself sufficiently.

Nick
You're not making even the least bit of sense at this point.

[PixyMisa]

It is not so much that there does not exist an objective reality. It is simply that it is constructed by the mind from a non-dual reality.
Nope. This is clearly not true.

Minds come and go. Objective reality remains.

There is no observable difference between them, simply that the mind creates the objective version through the use of the subject-object filter.
Again, this makes no sense at all. Using a general anaesthetic, I can switch your mind off.

It manufactures a reality according to an unconscious process which leads it to believe in limited selfhood.
Nope.

When awareness rises and you become aware of the unconscious process, this is evident.
Sorry, no, this is complete nonsense. What you are talking about is not raised awareness but delusion.

The assumption of limited selfhood, of a personal identity, takes place because it has not been tested.
Then why is it evident in the simplest of single-celled animals?

It has not been examined.
That has to be one of the most ludicrous statements you've ever made. What is there that we do that does not in some way constitute a test of the limited self?

When it is examined it is revealed to be unsubstantiable.
Uh, no. That is about as wrong as it is possible to be about anything. It is always substantiated.

You can demonstrate this for yourself by attempting to find scientific evidence of the existence of personal identity. There is a body, there are feelings, there are thoughts. Can you scientifically demonstrate that these things are yours
Yes.

that they have possession?
Not meaningful.

The thoughts are happening in your brain. They are yours. The end.

I don't reject the assumption of a shared objective reality. I am simply pointing out that it is being created by the mind because it has not yet examined itself sufficiently.
Wrong.

[PixyMisa]

Can you share your demonstration, that it might be objectively validated?
Sure.

You ask people if they have personal identity. They say yes (assuming you use the appropriate language and terminology they understand).

It's a pretty simple experiment, but it's a pretty simple question.

[PixyMisa]

You're not making even the least bit of sense at this point.
It's a sort of anti-sense. If you invert all logic and evidence, you end up with Nick's position.

[69dodge]

The assumption of limited selfhood, of a personal identity, takes place because it has not been tested. It has not been examined. When it is examined it is revealed to be unsubstantiable.

You can demonstrate this for yourself by attempting to find scientific evidence of the existence of personal identity. There is a body, there are feelings, there are thoughts. Can you scientifically demonstrate that these things are yours, that they have possession?

I'm not sure what you mean by asking whether my thoughts are mine. People can't read other people's minds. If I think about something, and you don't know what I'm thinking about, wouldn't it be fair to describe the thought as being mine and not yours?

[JoeEllison]

It's a sort of anti-sense. If you invert all logic and evidence, you end up with Nick's position.

Well, I don't know if it is an inversion so much...

It seems to be a case of dumping a bunch of unrelated philosophical ideas into a pot, filtered through a mind that has only a passing understanding of those ideas, combined with an arrogant assumption that they are somehow new ideas that have never been considered by scientists before.

[John Freestone]

No, you're exactly backwards in fact.

If your reasoning leads you to a brick wall, to a place where you have reached the limits of possible knowledge, the only "lie" is to claim that you somehow know what's behind that wall.

The claim that there is no objective reality, that subjectivity somehow leads to a state where we cannot make any objective claims about reality, is just that sort of brick wall. We accept the assumption of an objective reality, not because we know it to be absolute "truth", but because it is the only assumption that can lead to anything useful. If we can never be truly objective, the best we can hope for is a "shared subjectivity," a commonality of experience and a repeatability of experimental results.

And, here's the kicker: anyone who rejects the assumption of a shared, common objective reality? They have absolutely nothing more to add to any discussion, because of that rejection. That's your dead end, full stop, I hope you were wearing your seat belt. :DBut, Joe, those who choose to investigate the world taking into account, or from the starting point of, their own subjective experience are not pretending what's behind a wall. They are facing up to the dead end you describe because they have thought about it long enough to be convinced that it is a dead end, and they are often left feeling that there is nowhere to go at all, at first. I found that once I accepted my belief that there is no way of getting outside reality to see it objectively, a whole new dimension of exploration opened up, which was based on being absolutely truthful with myself about what I know and what I don't.

There are people who appear similar on the surface, but who haven't even gone through the phase of trying objectivity - they are in magical systems of belief, usually just repeating what they've been told and hope is true, and often those beliefs are based on fear of what would happen if they tested them. That's what I meant before by a mature mysticism (and maybe that word isn't right either) which follows the insight that objectivity is not a truthful thing, not a real feature of the world, a mental construct. The insight comes along with the realisation that one's individual momentary experience - the subject - is the only thing a human being can actually say is true. (The discussion turned at one point to whether a tree exists when you're not looking at it - this new viewpoint recognises that to say the tree exists EVEN WITH YOUR EYES OPEN is pure wishful thinking, utter assumption and, some would say later investigation reveals it to be utterly false - but let's not get ahead of ourselves!)

The brick-wall finder says again, "What can I say is actually true, then?"... and here begins a new quest (parallel with the utility of science and technology). Traditionally the student is told to sit facing a wall, incidentally, and begin a rigorous internal philosophical enquiry.

In a sense, your challenge that we can't say any more is right, but it's a rightness that is partial and unimportant compared with the absolute facts (internal and subjective though they may be) that we find on this new route. And, if nothing else, we can keep pointing out the possibility of the lie. Stout talked about one value of science, that bad science was ousted by good science. The widely accepted cultural meaning of that is good=verified, bad=falsified, not good=expedient, bad=awkward. Science can't say "If that's true it doesn't matter because it doesn't lead to anything utilitarian. It would be useless to accept that truth so we'll pass on to something else..." and maintain that tradition, especially when it concerns the whole FOUNDATION of science. PM suggested that if the fundamental axioms of science turn out to be false, science will adapt to the new position, but now keeps repeating "What subject-object divide?".

Now, the question is this - and either position is fine - is science based ultimately on utility and the circumventing of philosophical brick walls or is it based on truth? You seem to be arguing for the first. A long tradition of scientists would be turning in their graves, but maybe that is the reality of the extent of science. Maybe it has to accept that it 'works' within certain limits, but isn't going to trouble itself with reality anymore.

[Dancing David]

...
Interestingly, one of the earlier stages of insight in meditation is often reported as seeing through the habitual separation of observer and observed, and I can attest to it myself.

yes but that is just a bias of the Hellenistic thought system of the Victorians. There are many scientists who are spiritual and already have that insight.

The issue is that is does not invaldate the scientific method.

Objective does not mean that you have to stand outside the box. It means that you hopefully don't let your personal bias draw your conclusions.


Stout, I hope I didn't shoot you down in flames. I don't remember doing so, and found your post a good contribution to the discussion. I think that to give up on the valuable information and technological improvements science can undoubtedly provide would be silly, and that this is not a necessary result of understanding that science is a belief system. As PM has clarified, science is based on certain 'metaphysical assumptions'. It seems reasonable to me to consider this a belief system, and that such axioms are arbitrary (decided, rather than discovered or given in nature itself) and that there are other belief systems based on other axiomatic assumptions.

Now here is where we can discuss things. the question then becomes what benefit to exchanging information in the other beliefs system can be found. There are benefits to non-rational cognition, but one has to still use the scientific method, other wise some very silly things can occur.

What data suggests that there is a 'soul' or any benefit to discussions that can not be translated into a materialist system?


The problem is that SOME scientists are so sure that having defined the world as matter, investigating it as though it were matter, and coming up with material results, this means that they have established the axioms as true,

As pointed out earlier, the ontology of the universe is a moot point. Idealism becomes the same as materialism. there is no difference. If the world is composed of thought it behaves the same as if it is made of dead matter.

or, as PM suggested, that they would change them if they proved untrue, which is like a man walking round a large box saying there's only an inside,

Not really, it is more like saying that the inside of the box is all you can interact with. At this point what evidence do you present for interactions outside the box?

but if he ever found an outside he'd change his mind, but still being so sold on the idea that he's inside an infinite box that he never notices the walls or tries to see over them.

This is incorrect, what can you present to say that the box is not as observed. Remember that just because you have the possibility of something it is speculation, a possibility, that is what it is.

Funny thing is that if you define the world as utterly spiritual, all the matter being explained as maya (illusion), it all makes about as much sense in its own internal logic too...which observation adds weight to the idea that we project our concepts outwards.

Now this is where you get very braod and are making huge sweeping generalizations.

I am a practiced mystic, i can translate freely between the two systems and have tried to come to term with them.

The world could be illusion. But what is so meaningful about that thought?
That is also not what the alleged historical buddha taught. The teaching is that the world is what it is , it is the concept of the self that is illusion.
Why would it make a difference if the world is illusion, there is no meaning in that conclusion.

Of couse we use our concepts and are bound by our personal history, society and culture. One should be wary of all thoughts and test them all for validity.

PM, I said I'd reply to the rest of your post:
I'm aware of the research, and here is one example of the way we keep reinterpreting data in terms of our current worldview: if one is a scientific materialist one sees this as indicating that the machinery is grinding away mindlessly taking action in our bodies, and popping the illusion of prior intention into our consciousness (that place where the biocybernetics do the reflecting...?...); if, on the other hand you happened to believe in an ever-present, all-powerful Being, you could conclude just as easily that His/Her intention acted prior to our humble conscious knowledge as mere mortals ("Thy Will not mine, O Lord"). The experiments could suggest something about our free will, but not necessarily the dead quantum cogs you seem to infer.

Finally, you say that no thoughts have ever been seen to affect physical reality. I remind you of what I said about working out the extent of various relationships like placebo and mind-affecting-matter.

You have said this before, what makes it any indication of anything that does not fit into the materialist perspective/ Just saying the word placebo does not make for an non-material explanation. I can give you an explanation in materialist terms of it all.

So what are you talking about , be specific please. :)

Consider then where almost anything in the cultural environment originated, from your house to those little reflectors left on the moon so we could fire lasers at it, the internet we're using to discuss this...it all came into being from people's ideas, their thoughts. Ok, we are probably in agreement that I can't move my mug by psychokinesis, but the possibility that we project our beliefs onto reality to some extent suggests that powers that science would consider 'supernatural' might exist for those who are not so bound by the same mental constructs as you and I are, which is basically what much of the mystical literature describes:

Evidence or more silly thinking. there are alos people who think that your skin color reflects your inate intelligence. they hold that believe firmly, but they lack the evidence.

the development of unusual psychic powers. I am developing more trust of the Eastern mystical tradition as I prove the lower (still bordering on supernatural) contentions in it for myself in my own subjective experience.

That is nice, what have you proved and how have you proved it.

Yes we are all connected and all unique, but what meaning does that have other than aa a platitude. If you get specific then it would be more menaingful.
Again I have been involved in the mystic my whole life.

I have to admit that this, though, for me, is one of the very weakest parts of such an alternative view, and I am very well acquainted with all the cold-reading, skewed perception, etc. that can leave vulnerable people believing they can jump off buildings and fly, or that they're psychic because someone 'always' phones when they've 'just' thought of them...

Weird that, though, isn't it, how those people shape their internal, subjective reality according to their belief systems. (Go on, say "No").


They may shape thier internal perceptions to some extent, but why would it matter. All human thoughts are equally true and false, what validity and application do they have?

[Dancing David]

Well, I'm just trying to be realistic! I'm not knocking science, merely trying to put its perceptions into perspective. Objectivity proceeds from the experience of the subject-object divide. Yet, this experience is constructed by the mind, and its presence remains unchallenged, until circumstances cause it to be challenged. The overwhelming majority of observers, in my experience, have never challenged that the experience of separation might be entirely conceptual. They simply assume that it is a priori real. This is not so, as simple self-examination will reveal.

Experientially, I would say that reality is a priori non-dual - monistic. From this experience the mind constructs the experience of duality - subject-object separation - as it has the capacity to do so. Yet this experience is merely a construction, and from it science proceeds. Thus it seems to me that science is only really valid within this mentally constructed artificial framework, though for this last part it would be good to experiment a little mentally.

Nick

I would disagree on the basis of what makes science and objectivity.

It is not the divide but the idea of isotropy, in space and time.

You can understand that we are all linked in a number of ways and it doesn't change that.

[Dancing David]

Can you substantiate personal identity scientifically?

Nick

The apparent actions of a single organism.

[Dancing David]

The assumption of limited selfhood, of a personal identity, takes place because it has not been tested. It has not been examined. When it is examined it is revealed to be unsubstantiable.

You can demonstrate this for yourself by attempting to find scientific evidence of the existence of personal identity. There is a body, there are feelings, there are thoughts. Can you scientifically demonstrate that these things are yours, that they have possession?






Hiya, the bounded nature of the physical body is what there appears to be. What evidence is there that there is non-physical communication between the bodies.

yes there is an illsuion of the 'self', the body, thoughts, feelings, perceptions and habits exist. They appear to be bound by the physical body.

There is not evidence of any transcedent component.

Just because you are looking through a window does not mean that you can't percieve through the window. One can speculate as to the rest of the picture if one wishes. One can also undetsnad the interconnectedness of the world and value the scientific method, the key is isotropy, the 'objective' stance is to try to aknowledge personal bias.

[Dancing David]

Can you share your demonstration, that it might be objectively validated?

Nick

I can demostrate a meanigful attribution of all human experience being bounded to a body. There is no communication between bodies through non-physical means. It can be demonstrated that the materialist POV provides a reasonable framework for communication.

All subjective experience is bounded by the physical body.

[PixyMisa]

As pointed out earlier, the ontology of the universe is a moot point. Idealism becomes the same as materialism. there is no difference. If the world is composed of thought it behaves the same as if it is made of dead matter.
This is a key point.

Science does not assume the universe is made out of dead matter. It assumes the universe behaves as though it were made of dead matter. That's the difference between materialism and naturalism in metaphysics.

And the interesting thing (for science) is that this assumption is always, always, always borne out in our observations.

You can, as you say, construct an idealist metaphysics that is congruent with naturalism and hence supports science. Plato's and Berkeley's do not; John's and Nick's (insofar as they are even monistic) do not. If you expect some difference, some overthrowing of scientific orthodoxy from your new ontology, then you're simply out of luck, because the evidence isn't there.

Mind and consciousness are lousy bases for an ontology because they are observably not the fundamental nature of reality. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but this happens to minds all the time.

Information is one possible basis for a reasonable idealist metaphysics. Computation may be another. If you suggest to a theoretical physicist that the underlying nature of reality is information rather than matter, he'll probably just shrug; he might even agree.

The problem is that these forms of idealism don't change any part of our scientific understanding of the world. Minds are still brain processes. Human conscious awareness is still a side effect of complex biochemistry. We are still warm, wonderful machines.

Well, I don't actually regard that as a problem at all, but I expect others might.

[JoeEllison]

In a sense, your challenge that we can't say any more is right, but it's a rightness that is partial and unimportant compared with the absolute facts (internal and subjective though they may be) that we find on this new route.
There IS no "new route." Once you claim that there is an objective reality that is different from our subjective view of reality, and that the two don't match, you are required by logic to admit that you cannot learn anything else. YOU, specifically, John Freestone, seem to be claiming that you cannot know anything about the universe, so your "new route" is an impossible contradiction. You can't have "absolute subjective" facts, that's an oxymoron. You are celebrating ignorance over knowledge. You think you're being deep and philosophical, when in reality you are being shallow and illogical.

[Stout]

I am a practiced mystic, i can translate freely between the two systems and have tried to come to term with them.

The world could be illusion. But what is so meaningful about that thought?
That is also not what the alleged historical buddha taught. The teaching is that the world is what it is , it is the concept of the self that is illusion.
Why would it make a difference if the world is illusion, there is no meaning in that conclusion.


That..IMHO...is solid gold my friend:)

If I'm understanding your meaning correctly.

Not being a spiritual guy myself, I find it difficult to subscribe to two systems that would/could be at odds with each other however I wouldn't deem it impossible in the slightest. We hear these stories...of palaeontologist's who are also Christians and i wonder how such a person could get up in public and declare something like a fossil to be millions of years old when, in the back of my mind, I'm thinking " what about the whole young Earth theory ? "

I can devise a mechanism where a scientist could "deal with" these two opposing ideas ( about the age of the Earth ) but it would involve putting the mystic "above" the scientific in the mind of the scientist and a real separation of the mystic and scientific in that mind.

[Nick227]

When you say "no one has ... located this process", we know perfectly well where the processes involved are: The brain. You are making two assumptions here: First, that the experience of personal identity is a single process, and second, that that process is localised to a specific part of the brain. Neither one of these is necessarily true.

For sure, we don't know what creates the experience of personal identity at a brain level, but maybe one day we find out.

However, whilst locating this process would to my mind confirm that the experience of personal identity is a natural experience, this doesn't alter the fact that if you can raise your self-awareness sufficiently then you do actually become aware of this process and can look underneath. This is what I'm talking about. When you can consciously experience the process of identification with thought, usually an unconscious process, you become aware of a deeper level of reality. It doesn't look any different, but the "I-not I" filter is gone. You have the choice to look through that filter and respond to situations as though there was a personal identity, or to not.


What do you mean by that? In what way is it a temporary mental construct, and how does it dissipate?

If your focus is on self-awareness, and creating more of it, you will eventually become directly aware of the process by which the experience of personal identity is created. You then have a choice.


You can assume monism. You can't demonstrate it. You can assert that so far, your observations are consistent with monism, but that just means that so far, your observations are consistent with monism.

Pixy, you are trying to relate monism through the eyes of duality. You are assuming here that duality is primary. It is secondary. In monism there is no point from which to make an objective evaluation, you cannot stand outside of the system.

Nick

[Nick227]

Sure.

You ask people if they have personal identity. They say yes (assuming you use the appropriate language and terminology they understand).

It's a pretty simple experiment, but it's a pretty simple question.

This demonstrates that people have the experience of having a personal identity. I am asking if you can scientifically demonstrate that that experience is a priori real, and not simply an untested assumption. Is there anything in your experience of being alive which can empirically validate your assumption of limited selfhood?

Nick

[Dancing David]

That..IMHO...is solid gold my friend:)

If I'm understanding your meaning correctly.

Not being a spiritual guy myself, I find it difficult to subscribe to two systems that would/could be at odds with each other however I wouldn't deem it impossible in the slightest. We hear these stories...of palaeontologist's who are also Christians and i wonder how such a person could get up in public and declare something like a fossil to be millions of years old when, in the back of my mind, I'm thinking " what about the whole young Earth theory ? "

I can devise a mechanism where a scientist could "deal with" these two opposing ideas ( about the age of the Earth ) but it would involve putting the mystic "above" the scientific in the mind of the scientist and a real separation of the mystic and scientific in that mind.

To create the interface I assume with goog reason that there are many ways that our brains process information.

The more popular for science is rational cognitive skills. A very abstracted and logic based system.

There are others we use all the time:

-associative learning which would incluse the 'pattern recognition' paradigm

-emotional reasoning which is a mix of learning, pattern recognition and cognitive framing. This is where many 'rational' people fail in that they don't learn from their emotions.

-intuition - a bizzare crittter mainly pattern recognition and pattern projection, and learning.

-interactive visualization and other means of non-verbal communication with the brain

-the wierd world of reconstructive memory.

All of these skills are hugely involved in what people call 'mysticism' and they can be trained and a way of rationalizing them developed.

The way I phrase it to myself is that i have different channels for communication with myself, in that i process information through multiple routes all the time. The validity of all perceptions should be questioned.

But something i learned as a human and a former social worker is to learn to explaore why you have an 'ookey feeling' about someone or something.

[Nick227]

I'm not sure what you mean by asking whether my thoughts are mine. People can't read other people's minds. If I think about something, and you don't know what I'm thinking about, wouldn't it be fair to describe the thought as being mine and not yours?

I mean can you demonstrate that the thought has possession at all? That it belongs to anyone?

If you examine the experience of having a personal identity objectively, you might say that it arises through an as yet undiscovered brain process, or through mental processing, learned behaviour. If you examine it subjectively you see that it is created by the passage of thoughts, and primarily thoughts of which we are not consciously aware. When you focus on deepening your self-awareness you notice that this experience of having a personal identity begins to dissipate with the reduction in unconscious thinking.

Nick

[Nick227]

Minds come and go. Objective reality remains.

Whilst the filter that creates the experience of objectivity remains this is so.

If you examine new born babies you can see that they appear to exhibit little sense of personal identity. As the infant reaches around 9 months age, so the fledgling ego appears to develop, perhaps as a result of learning - people pointing at the baby and getting it to recognise its name; and maybe some developing neurology that allows the infant to conceive of limited selfhood. This is not exact science but it lets you see what is going on here. The egoic self is not permanent and innate, merely a transitory layer.


That has to be one of the most ludicrous statements you've ever made. What is there that we do that does not in some way constitute a test of the limited self?

You can understand actions through the filter of personal identity. How we respond as though we are threatened, how we move towards what attracts us. But there is nothing in life to actually corroborate that personal identity exists. It is simply an artifact of self-consciousness. This becomes evident when awareness deepens.


The thoughts are happening in your brain. They are yours. The end.

How do you empirically demonstrate that either the brain or the thoughts actually have possession? It is simply the passage of unconscious thoughts through the brain that creates the assumption of limited selfhood, that these things belong to anyone and specifically that they belong to "you."

What is there in your experience of being alive that allows you to prove that the body surrounding you now actually belongs to anyone? And where is this entity that it supposedly belongs to? The whole thing is utterly nonsensical. Yet as a race we are so limited in our development that even the finest minds invariably simply proceed from the assumption that limited selfhood exists - that these are "my" thoughts, "my" beliefs.

Nick

[Nick227]

The issue is that is does not invaldate the scientific method.

It does not invalidate it but it does put it in perspective. Understanding that the experience of having a personal identity, and thus an objective viewpoint, is simply constructed by the mind for a limited period, does place a considerably different value on the fruits of objective insight. It does not invalidate them but it allows you to see that they're really not such a big deal.

Nick

[Nick227]

The apparent actions of a single organism.

How does this substantiate personal identity? Are you saying that a single organism needs a sense of personal identity in order to act?

Nick

[JoeEllison]

:rolleyes:

[Nick227]

I can demostrate a meanigful attribution of all human experience being bounded to a body. There is no communication between bodies through non-physical means. It can be demonstrated that the materialist POV provides a reasonable framework for communication.

All subjective experience is bounded by the physical body.

How do you know what is inside and what is outside? Surely the experience of some things being outside of me, for example this keyboard, arises as a result of the belief that I am the body.

I have nothing against the materialist point of view, though people tell me that quantum physicists have issues with it, due to instant communication or something. If you can experience non-duality, which looks no different from what you see now, you can quickly understand how instant communication could take place across the whole universe. This is because the whole sense of perspective and of distance arises only because of our notion of limited selfhood.

Nick

[Jimbo07]

Please don't abuse quantum physics. What has it ever done to you?

:(

[Nick227]

Please don't abuse quantum physics. What has it ever done to you?

:(

Nothing really.

I guess I get a bit skeptical of it, and other scientific pronouncements, as the scientists mostly don't examine their assumptions. I would love to hear more of science from anyone who's aware of the assumptions of the objective mindset, but these guys seem a bit few and far between. Mostly they seem happy to just keep focussing outward.

If the results of the experiment cannot be detached from the experiment itself, except through a conceptualisation, what does this really mean?

Nick

[JoeEllison]

I have nothing against the materialist point of view.



That's good, because it is currently the only point of view that has any usefulness whatsoever.

[JoeEllison]

I guess I get a bit skeptical of it, and other scientific pronouncements, as the scientists mostly don't examine their assumptions.
What makes you think that? Because they reject useless and foolish ideas, it doesn't mean that they didn't examine them first. Or, do you think you've got something new to add to the world, that no one has ever thought of before?

If so, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to hear all about it!

[Dancing David]

I mean can you demonstrate that the thought has possession at all? That it belongs to anyone?

If you examine the experience of having a personal identity objectively, you might say that it arises through an as yet undiscovered brain process, or through mental processing, learned behaviour. If you examine it subjectively you see that it is created by the passage of thoughts, and primarily thoughts of which we are not consciously aware. When you focus on deepening your self-awareness you notice that this experience of having a personal identity begins to dissipate with the reduction in unconscious thinking.

Nick


Um, have you experienced someone else's consciousness or just the one associated with your current body?

[Nick227]

That's good, because it is currently the only point of view that has any usefulness whatsoever.

I wouldn't dispute it for a second. Science is eminently useful.

Nick

[Dancing David]

Whilst the filter that creates the experience of objectivity remains this is so.

If you examine new born babies you can see that they appear to exhibit little sense of personal identity. As the infant reaches around 9 months age, so the fledgling ego appears to develop, perhaps as a result of learning - people pointing at the baby and getting it to recognise its name; and maybe some developing neurology that allows the infant to conceive of limited selfhood. This is not exact science but it lets you see what is going on here. The egoic self is not permanent and innate, merely a transitory layer.



You can understand actions through the filter of personal identity. How we respond as though we are threatened, how we move towards what attracts us. But there is nothing in life to actually corroborate that personal identity exists. It is simply an artifact of self-consciousness. This becomes evident when awareness deepens.




How do you empirically demonstrate that either the brain or the thoughts actually have possession? It is simply the passage of unconscious thoughts through the brain that creates the assumption of limited selfhood, that these things belong to anyone and specifically that they belong to "you."

The issue of the possesion is seperate and a total cognitive label. there are the experiences and behaviors of the brain and the rest is just labeling.


What is there in your experience of being alive that allows you to prove that the body surrounding you now actually belongs to anyone?

it doesn't , it is a social more. What evidence is there that consciousness, such as it is transcends more than one body at a time?

And where is this entity that it supposedly belongs to?

there is only a body in the world.

The whole thing is utterly nonsensical. Yet as a race we are so limited in our development that even the finest minds invariably simply proceed from the assumption that limited selfhood exists - that these are "my" thoughts, "my" beliefs.

Nick


there is no evidence that they transcend a single body and it's boundaries, they are not shared.

[Nick227]

Um, have you experienced someone else's consciousness or just the one associated with your current body?

Hi DD,

I'm saying...no possession. Can you demonstrate that the thoughts passing through the mind have possession? Not that they belong to someone else, but that they have possession at all. The assumption "my thoughts" arises but have you examined it to see if it can be substantiated?

Nick

[Dancing David]

It does not invalidate it but it does put it in perspective. Understanding that the experience of having a personal identity, and thus an objective viewpoint, is simply constructed by the mind for a limited period, does place a considerably different value on the fruits of objective insight. It does not invalidate them but it allows you to see that they're really not such a big deal.

Nick

I agree, all thoughts are equally true and equally false , the objective part if more a matter of isotropy and causal relations. Or the appearance thereof. Objectivity does not involve an actual 'outside' viewpoint.

There is no mind outside of the body and in fact the mind is another one of those labels that is un-needed. There is only the body.

[Nick227]

there is no evidence that they transcend a single body and it's boundaries, they are not shared.

I am not saying they are shared. I'm asking you to locate where this experience that the thoughts are yours is coming from. Not that they might belong to someone else, rather that they have any possession in the first place. Do you see what I mean?

A brain creates thoughts. Yet why should these thoughts appear to have possession? And is this experience that they do have possession ultimately valid, or merely assumed? This is what I'm asking.

Nick

[JoeEllison]

I wouldn't dispute it for a second. Science is eminently useful.

Nick
And nothing you've suggested is useful at all.

[Nick227]

And nothing you've suggested is useful at all.

It is not so much use for making toasters, no. But if you want to start to grasp the nature of reality, the nature of truth, it is eminently useful. Of course, to validate this you would need to try it and see. It is subjective investigation.

Nick

[JoeEllison]

It is not so much use for making toasters, no. But if you want to start to grasp the nature of reality, the nature of truth, it is eminently useful. Of course, to validate this you would need to try it and see. It is subjective investigation.

NickOh, so it is "subjective"... meaning that you're not going to arrive at any answer about the "nature of reality." You are just going to lie to yourself, and proudly by the looks of it, and pretend that your intellectually bankrupt(and sadly immature) viewpoint makes you smarter and more enlightened than everyone else.

The truth is, reality is either a) exactly what it appears to be, given the assumptions currently accepted by science, or b) currently unknowable... and that includes "unknowable by you," no matter how much navel gazing you engage in.

[Nick227]

I agree, all thoughts are equally true and equally false , the objective part if more a matter of isotropy and causal relations. Or the appearance thereof. Objectivity does not involve an actual 'outside' viewpoint.

Sorry, I don't know what isotropy is, so I can't discuss it.

What I do understand is that for something to be considered objective there needs to be a clear sense of boundary - an object and a subject. This boundary is constructed by the mind. It is not real in the way that sensory experience is real. It is a filter through which sensory information passes and, hey presto, the experience of objectivity arises.

Nick

[Nick227]

The truth is, reality is either a) exactly what it appears to be, given the assumptions currently accepted by science, or b) currently unknowable... and that includes "unknowable by you," no matter how much navel gazing you engage in.

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true? At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old. Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know. You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

Nick

[Irony]

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true? At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old. Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know. You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

Nick

Most of us here have looked at those assumptions Nick. What you seem to not understand is that it is unnecessary to continue looking at them day-in and day-out. The crime of nihilism is not that it is invalid. The crime of nihilism is that it is useless in every respect and flat-out boring.

[Nick227]

Most of us here have looked at those assumptions Nick. What you seem to not understand is that it is unnecessary to continue looking at them day-in and day-out. The crime of nihilism is not that it is invalid. The crime of nihilism is that it is useless in every respect and flat-out boring.

What has nihilism to do with it? Experientially, non-duality is way more exciting than objectivity. The latter just gets like some sad old man's control trip after a while.

Nick

[JoeEllison]

What has nihilism to do with it? Experientially, non-duality is way more exciting than objectivity.

"Exciting?"

Only if you think make-believe fantasies are more exciting than reality.

[JoeEllison]

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true? At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old. Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know. You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

Nick
You've managed to find the one sure way of never, ever finding out "what actually is true." I keep trying to get it through your head, the reason why people stop thinking so much down the path you've chosen is that it leads absolutely nowhere. You can while about those mean old scientists rejecting your "brilliant" ideas... or, you can grow up a little, and consider the fact that your ideas aren't new, original, or intelligent.

[Stout]

To create the interface I assume with goog reason that there are many ways that our brains process information.
.


You know...I spent about an hour staring at that post and searching out the terms I was unfamiliar with. Turns out it was only the terms and not the basic concepts that were a stumbling block.

Mind you I'm still hung up on 'pattern recognition' paradigm.

How would you describe your mysticism and it's relationship with the material world ? From reading your post I'm under the impression that there isn't much of, if any relationship and your mystic explorations are more geared to examining your own perceptions about how you, personally view things and, by extension, how others view things.

I find intuition to be rather straight forward there's certain clues given off by people and situations that one can be sensitive to but not necessarily identify on the spot. maybe, in retrospect one could think about those "clues" and rationalise their feelings.

However, at the time one is making a decision based on intuition it can seem like "the vibes" are being communicated to you from an outside source.

[PixyMisa]

For sure, we don't know what creates the experience of personal identity at a brain level, but maybe one day we find out.
As I said, we know it's created by the brain. What exactly are you looking for?

However, whilst locating this process would to my mind confirm that the experience of personal identity is a natural experience, this doesn't alter the fact that if you can raise your self-awareness sufficiently then you do actually become aware of this process and can look underneath.
No you can't. No amount of introspection can make you aware of your own biochemistry.

This is what I'm talking about. When you can consciously experience the process of identification with thought, usually an unconscious process, you become aware of a deeper level of reality. It doesn't look any different, but the "I-not I" filter is gone. You have the choice to look through that filter and respond to situations as though there was a personal identity, or to not.
Utter nonsense.

No matter how addled your metaphysics, if I administer a general anaesthetic to your body, it is your mind that gets switched off. And if I administer a general anaesthetic to someone else's body, your mind is not affected.

If your focus is on self-awareness, and creating more of it, you will eventually become directly aware of the process by which the experience of personal identity is created. You then have a choice.
Nope.

Pixy, you are trying to relate monism through the eyes of duality.
Nope.

You are assuming here that duality is primary.
Nope.

It is secondary.
And nope.

There is no dualism. There is no subject-object divide. The subjective is a subset of the objective.

In monism there is no point from which to make an objective evaluation, you cannot stand outside of the system.
You cannot stand outside of any logically consitent monist ontology: True, but entirely irrelevant. We can approach objectivity as closely as we like by understanding what subjectivity is - how our perceptions work, how our minds work - and removing those variables from our observations. That is exactly what science does.

[PixyMisa]

This demonstrates that people have the experience of having a personal identity.
Yes.

I am asking if you can scientifically demonstrate that that experience is a priori real, and not simply an untested assumption.
Yes. It's the same thing.

Personal identity is informational. Information is substrate-neutral. There is no such thing as an illusion of information. A mirage of a lake is not a lake, but a mirage of a paragraph of text is a paragraph of text.

So if people believe they have personal identity, if they say they experience it, then they do.

Is there anything in your experience of being alive which can empirically validate your assumption of limited selfhood?
Good grief. Everything validates the concept of limited selfhood. It's not limited to humans, it's not limited to creatures with brains, it's not even limited to living things.

If I put you under a general anaesthetic, your consciousness goes away, not anyone else's. The world is unchanged apart from that.

If I poke a planarian or a venus flytrap with a pin, it's that planarian, that flytrap, that responds. Not you, not me, not the tree outside or the squirrels in the tree.

If I hit a rock with a hammer, that rock breaks, not the rock next to it, or the one a mile away. It doesn't start to rain frogs, or turn from day into night, and nothing is inscribed upon the sky in blazing letters. The rock breaks.

[Apathia]

What has nihilism to do with it? Experientially, non-duality is way more exciting than objectivity. The latter just gets like some sad old man's control trip after a while.

Nick

Nick227,

I haven't been folowing this thread just because of the title. "Subjectivity" is often a woo word on this board, inviting misunderstanding and accusation.
But I've noticed your posts, and I just wanted to say I get your drift.
And I understand what's "exciting" about being an integral participant in reality, that isn't a metaphysical dualism between observing ego and observed objects, or mind and matter.

The ghost of Cartesian Dualism haunts even this skeptic's board. And some who certainly disbelieve in the soul or spirits still grant a metaphysical status to the fictions of the observing ego and conceptualized objects.

Of course, we observe ourselves as seperate selves, but we are also able to apprehend non-duality and our integration with reality. Though individual experiences of the dynamic of selfhood vary.

I take it that you are trying to point to a more fundamental Objectivity that is beyond the usual subjective/objective dicotomy, because it lets reality be on its own terms without the imposition of this conceptual, almost metaphysical, ego that claims itself the center of the universe.

We in our narrow range of interaction with reality at large (and very small) make so many "common sense" assumptions without close examination of what we are bringing to the table.

And this is not a criticism of Science. The wonder of the scientific persuit is that has so often contradicted our anthropocentric and egotistical prejudices.

Let's hear it for empericism!

[PixyMisa]

What I do understand is that for something to be considered objective there needs to be a clear sense of boundary - an object and a subject.
Nope.

This boundary is constructed by the mind.What do you mean "constructed by the mind"? If you're talking about what people think, then everything we think is in some sense "constructed by the mind", so the statement is superfluous. If you're talking about something other than thoughts, the statement is wrong.

It is not real in the way that sensory experience is real. It is a filter through which sensory information passes and, hey presto, the experience of objectivity arises.Nope. There's no such filter. There's no such experience.

We assume that our senses are relaying information from the outside world, because that is indeed what they do unless something is seriously out of whack. When there is doubt, we stop and check, seeking additional sensory information to confirm or deny the status of that particular perception (or don't, with sometimes tragic results).

There's no "experience of objectivity". We see things. We hear things. We assume those things are external, and for the most part, we're right.

[PixyMisa]

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true?
Nope. I just want to know what we observe.

At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old.
Done that.

Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know.
Did it only because it's useful.

You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.
Nope.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.
[Insert "Epic Fail" macro here.]

[PixyMisa]

I take it that you are trying to point to a more fundamental Objectivity that is beyond the usual subjective/objective dicotomy, because it lets reality be on its own terms without the imposition of this conceptual, almost metaphysical, ego that claims itself the center of the universe.
Um, don't know how to tell you this, but Nick isn't being metaphorical. He means exactly what he says. Which is unfortunate, because as metaphor, what Nick says might be interesting. Taken literally, of course, it's complete nonsense.

[69dodge]

I mean can you demonstrate that the thought has possession at all? That it belongs to anyone?

I don't know what you mean by "belongs" in this context. Presumably, you don't mean it in any legal sort of sense, the way your computer belongs to you because you bought it but my computer doesn't because you didn't. And, you agree that there are thoughts that you are aware of, which no one else is aware of, but you still wouldn't necessarily describe those thoughts as belonging to you. So, what do you mean by "belongs", then? I honestly have no idea.

If you can experience non-duality, which looks no different from what you see now, you can quickly understand how instant communication could take place across the whole universe. This is because the whole sense of perspective and of distance arises only because of our notion of limited selfhood.

I don't follow. It looks no different from what I see now? Then why would it change my mind about anything---like, for example, the probability that instant communication is possible?

But anyway, that's something that can be checked. You may feel as though you could communicate instantly with someone far away, but can you actually do it? If not, shouldn't you conclude that your mystical experiences have deceived you about the nature of reality, rather than revealed it to you?

[PixyMisa]

How do you know what is inside and what is outside?
I take a look. Unless something really bad has happened, or I'm studying topology, this is usually pretty obvious.

Surely the experience of some things being outside of me, for example this keyboard, arises as a result of the belief that I am the body.Vice-versa.

I have nothing against the materialist point of view, though people tell me that quantum physicists have issues with it, due to instant communication or something.Nope. Quantum Mechanics doesn't allow for instant communication, nor does it conflict with materialism.

If you can experience non-duality, which looks no different from what you see now, you can quickly understand how instant communication could take place across the whole universe.It can't.

(Just as an aside: Materialism in itself has no problem with instantaneous communications. It's reality that has the problem.)

This is because the whole sense of perspective and of distance arises only because of our notion of limited selfhood.Again, this is backwards. We have a notion of limited selfhood because we are physically separated from other things.

As I pointed out a few posts up, there is no way around the fact that this is the order of causality except through a minefield of metaphysical baloney. If I hit a planarian with a hammer, it is that planarian that goes squish, and not any other.

Always.

I guess I get a bit skeptical of it, and other scientific pronouncements, as the scientists mostly don't examine their assumptions.You keep claiming this. You have never presented any evidence for this claim.

And you use this baseless assertion to ignore mountains of evidence confirming Quantum Mechanics, including the computer you are posting from, which would not work otherwise.

I would love to hear more of science from anyone who's aware of the assumptions of the objective mindset, but these guys seem a bit few and far between.Not true. There are lots of working scientists who understand this. I won't claim that all of them do, but it's not something that's ignored by the scientific community.

Mostly they seem happy to just keep focussing outward.Yes, that's absolutely right. Because they are scientists, not philosophers. They are trying to discover fact, not truth.

If the results of the experiment cannot be detached from the experiment itself, except through a conceptualisation, what does this really mean?I don't know what it means. Looks like nonsense to me.

[dannagain]

Traditionally the student is told to sit facing a wall, incidentally,

Only in Soto Zen. In Rinzai Zen you sit facing away from the wall. In other types of Buddhism there are no walls (man).

and begin a rigorous internal philosophical enquiry.

(In Soto Zen), my teacher just tells you to sit there. No philosophical enquiry. You just sit. Shikanataza in Japanese is the name for it which translates as 'just sitting'.

In Rinzai they do all that koan stuff while meditating but I can't really see the use in that.

[Nick227]

I take it that you are trying to point to a more fundamental Objectivity that is beyond the usual subjective/objective dicotomy, because it lets reality be on its own terms without the imposition of this conceptual, almost metaphysical, ego that claims itself the center of the universe.

Hi Apathia,

I follow what you are saying and I agree.

I find that there is the experience of egoic identification with a narrow limitation of form (body, feelings, thoughts) and there is the experience of identifying with either all or form or nothing of it.

Pretty much everyone has the former, and naturally assumes that it is a "given," a permanent reality common to all humans. But when the latter occurs, even for a brief period, the truth of the situation becomes clear. The mind ascribes identity to certain aspects of its experience of life and labels others aspects "not I." This process is not innate. It simply arises as a result of some brain or mind process, and can be overcome by deepening self-awareness.

We in our narrow range of interaction with reality at large (and very small) make so many "common sense" assumptions without close examination of what we are bringing to the table.

And this is not a criticism of Science. The wonder of the scientific persuit is that has so often contradicted our anthropocentric and egotistical prejudices.

Let's hear it for empericism!

Completely!

What I find so intriguing about the JREF forum is that so many members are only too vocal to declaim psychicism and all manner of related phenomena, on the grounds that it cannot be scientifically proven, but are quite unwilling to ask for experimental validation of their own sense of limited selfhood, which is just as tentative as psychicism! They just assume its there, and are usually just as wont to avoid dealing with the question as a psychic under the spotlight might be.

Nick

[Dancing David]

How does this substantiate personal identity? Are you saying that a single organism needs a sense of personal identity in order to act?

Nick


No.

I mean that a definition of an individual can be created from the boundaries of a physical body.

'Personal identity' is a thought and therefore subject to uses which are invalid.

[Dancing David]

How do you know what is inside and what is outside? Surely the experience of some things being outside of me, for example this keyboard, arises as a result of the belief that I am the body.

I have nothing against the materialist point of view, though people tell me that quantum physicists have issues with it, due to instant communication or something. If you can experience non-duality, which looks no different from what you see now, you can quickly understand how instant communication could take place across the whole universe. This is because the whole sense of perspective and of distance arises only because of our notion of limited selfhood.

Nick

I don't recall using the terms you seem to think I am using. The world is what it is, one can be part of it. One in this case being an apparent physical body.

All things unique and interdependant.

Um, before I say that you have taken a trip to Wooville, what can you show me that shows 'instant communication', could be that there are speculations by some people that haven't been supported by the data yet.

Show me this communication at a distance, finger/moon issues aside.

[Dancing David]

Nothing really.

I guess I get a bit skeptical of it, and other scientific pronouncements, as the scientists mostly don't examine their assumptions. I would love to hear more of science from anyone who's aware of the assumptions of the objective mindset, but these guys seem a bit few and far between. Mostly they seem happy to just keep focussing outward.

If the results of the experiment cannot be detached from the experiment itself, except through a conceptualisation, what does this really mean?

Nick


Nothing, it would be meaningless, the fact that i am electromagneticaly interacting with my chair is what it is. The fact that I label it a chair does not change the combustion tempertaure of the materials in it. At least that has been demonstrated yet.

The results of an experiment are part of the experiment, it is an a priori requirement that they need to be seperated and not meaningful.

Of couse they can not be seperated, that does not change the fact (apparent) that water will boil at a certain 'temperature' at a certain air pressure.

We are unique and interconnected.

[Nick227]

Personal identity is informational. Information is substrate-neutral. There is no such thing as an illusion of information. A mirage of a lake is not a lake, but a mirage of a paragraph of text is a paragraph of text.

So if people believe they have personal identity, if they say they experience it, then they do.

Hi Pixy,

I am not disputing the existence of the experience of personal identity. I am saying that if you act to deepen your self-awareness you will become aware that it is not an innate phenomena. It is constructed by the mind. It is a filter through which the mind processes a non-dual reality, and this filter creates the experience of limited selfhood and thus allows objectivity.

Good grief. Everything validates the concept of limited selfhood. It's not limited to humans, it's not limited to creatures with brains, it's not even limited to living things.

If I put you under a general anaesthetic, your consciousness goes away, not anyone else's. The world is unchanged apart from that.

It is not that it belongs to someone else, rather that it belongs to no one. There isn't any identity for it to belong to. Limited selfhood is just a concept. It cannot be substantiated empirically.

If I poke a planarian or a venus flytrap with a pin, it's that planarian, that flytrap, that responds. Not you, not me, not the tree outside or the squirrels in the tree.

If I hit a rock with a hammer, that rock breaks, not the rock next to it, or the one a mile away. It doesn't start to rain frogs, or turn from day into night, and nothing is inscribed upon the sky in blazing letters. The rock breaks.

None of these phenomena validate personal identity.

Nick

[JoeEllison]

I am not disputing the existence of the experience of personal identity.
Good. That means you can stop typing now. :)

[Dancing David]

Hi DD,

I'm saying...no possession. Can you demonstrate that the thoughts passing through the mind have possession? Not that they belong to someone else, but that they have possession at all. The assumption "my thoughts" arises but have you examined it to see if it can be substantiated?

Nick


Hi Nick,

You still assume to know what I think?

I am a materialist nihilist pagan buddhist.

There is no mind, there is a brain.

Possesion is another thought construct, therefore it is limited in meaning and validity by usage.

Your last question is not a meaningful one. The experience of thoughts and perceptions is what it is. behaviorism is for me the only way out the solipistic trap of muddled wandering.

I am a p-zombie, I have all the attributes of consciousness but I am not conscious.

The bounded nature of individual thoughts is an apparent behavioral observation. So far there is no evidence to demonstarte that 'thoughts' are not a process inside the organic brain. If we are BIV (Brains in Vats) it doesn't matter either. The world appears to exist. And it appears to be consistent.

[Dancing David]

I am not saying they are shared. I'm asking you to locate where this experience that the thoughts are yours is coming from. Not that they might belong to someone else, rather that they have any possession in the first place. Do you see what I mean?

A brain creates thoughts. Yet why should these thoughts appear to have possession? And is this experience that they do have possession ultimately valid, or merely assumed? This is what I'm asking.

Nick


Um, it would appear that the subjective experiences I have are limited to the apparent physical body.

It would appear that sunjective experiences are effected by the physical body.

I have no evidence that would indicate that my subjective experience or that of others is not limited to a physical body.

There is no evidence of subjective experience outside a brain.

So until further data presents itself it is a moot point.

There may be something outside the universe, but it is a moot point.
There may or may not be possesion, I am not the one using the term, you are, it is a moot point.

It appears that thoughts are products of bounded organic systems. The appaerance is all that we have to work with. The rest is moot semantics. possesion of thought is not meaningful. Thought appears to exist and appears to be bounded by brains.

[Dancing David]

It is not so much use for making toasters, no. But if you want to start to grasp the nature of reality, the nature of truth, it is eminently useful. Of course, to validate this you would need to try it and see. It is subjective investigation.

Nick

And perhaps you are bold to assume that people have not made those investigations.

Staring into the flashlight of enlightement is not so useful.

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I don't know what isotropy is, so I can't discuss it.

What I do understand is that for something to be considered objective there needs to be a clear sense of boundary - an object and a subject. This boundary is constructed by the mind. It is not real in the way that sensory experience is real. It is a filter through which sensory information passes and, hey presto, the experience of objectivity arises.

Nick

Isotropy is the axiom that events are the same across space and time. What effects an object at one place and time will have similar effect across space and time.

You are also using the terms subject and object in a very hide bound fashion.

In an experiement one tries to control variables. There does not have to be this artificial boundary that you are suggesting. While that is perhaps what is taught in school , it is rather an undeveloped POV.

It does not matter to the rubidium atoms in a cooling capture and magnetic evaporative chamber that become Bose-Einstien Condensate if you call them subject or object. They still appear to assume the same waveform.

[Dancing David]

I figure at some point everybody wants to know - what actually is true? At that point there's the option to look at the assumptions they've been making since they were about 6 months old. Not because it's necessarily useful, but because, actually, you wanna know. You're not going to be able to tell anyone what it's like, you can point your finger but that's about it. You're not going to win any nobel prizes or get a load of acclaim. It's just because actually, when it all comes down, you just want to know. For you.

I mean, personally, I still try and get a bit of acclaim for it here and there.

Nick


Truth is like belief , another bugaboo.

I have an apparent life, that is good enough for me.

[PixyMisa]

I am not disputing the existence of the experience of personal identity. I am saying that if you act to deepen your self-awareness you will become aware that it is not an innate phenomena.
No. You imagine you experience the awareness that it is not an innate phenomenon. But as I have demonstrate (see: anaesthetic, general; worms, flat; flytrap, venus; rocks, broken) it is inescapably innate.

It is constructed by the mind. It is a filter through which the mind processes a non-dual reality, and this filter creates the experience of limited selfhood and thus allows objectivity.
Wrong.

It is not that it belongs to someone else, rather that it belongs to no one.
What's this "belongs to"? I don't care who it "belongs to".

If I apply a general anaesthetic to the body of the individual labelled "Nick227", the consciousness associated with that body is switched off. No other consciousness is affected. Nor does applying a general anaesthetic to any other body affect the consciousness associated with the individual labelled "Nick227".

There isn't any identity for it to belong to. Limited selfhood is just a concept. It cannot be substantiated empirically.
I just substantiated it empirically.

None of these phenomena validate personal identity.
No. They establish the physical basis of limited selfhood.

[volatile]

Nick... please read some books on the subject of conciousness. "Conversations on Consciousness", edited by Susan Blackmore, is an excellent starting point...

[JoeEllison]

The bounded nature of individual thoughts is an apparent behavioral observation. So far there is no evidence to demonstarte that 'thoughts' are not a process inside the organic brain. If we are BIV (Brains in Vats) it doesn't matter either. The world appears to exist. And it appears to be consistent.
What I've always wondered is, since everything behaves in such a consistent way, why do people insist that there must be something more than what is very clearly apparent?

[Nick227]

Hi Nick,

You still assume to know what I think?

I am a materialist nihilist pagan buddhist.

There is no mind, there is a brain.

Possesion is another thought construct, therefore it is limited in meaning and validity by usage.

Your last question is not a meaningful one. The experience of thoughts and perceptions is what it is. behaviorism is for me the only way out the solipistic trap of muddled wandering.

I am a p-zombie, I have all the attributes of consciousness but I am not conscious.

The bounded nature of individual thoughts is an apparent behavioral observation. So far there is no evidence to demonstarte that 'thoughts' are not a process inside the organic brain. If we are BIV (Brains in Vats) it doesn't matter either. The world appears to exist. And it appears to be consistent.

Hi David,

I am not presuming to know what you think. I am saying - how can you demonstrate that the thoughts, currently passing through what you experience as "your" mind, have possession at all? That they belong to anyone, or better, any limited entity? The experience you are apparently having, that the thoughts passing through the mind are "yours," is being constructed by the mind. The thoughts pass anyway, the senses take in information anyway, but the notion that any of this is happening to any personal identity cannot be empirically validated.

This affects nothing physical. The world is the same. All the experiences are sensorily the same. It's simply that the notion that these experiences are happening to any personal identity is dissipated. They are just happening.

Nick

[JoeEllison]

Hi David,

I am not presuming to know what you think. I am saying - how can you demonstrate that the thoughts, currently passing through what you experience as "your" mind, have possession at all? That they belong to anyone, or better, any limited entity? The experience you are apparently having, that the thoughts passing through the mind are "yours," is being constructed by the mind. The thoughts pass anyway, the senses take in information anyway, but the notion that any of this is happening to any limited entity cannot be empirically validated.

This affects nothing physical. The world is the same. All the experiences are sensorily the same. It's simply that the notion that these experiences are happening to any limited entity is dissipated. They are just happening.

Nick
If it affects nothing physical, and the world is the same, what purpose does it serve to make the distinction between what appears to be so, and what is actually so? If there's no way to tell the difference, what does it matter?

[Nick227]

No. You imagine you experience the awareness that it is not an innate phenomenon. But as I have demonstrate (see: anaesthetic, general; worms, flat; flytrap, venus; rocks, broken) it is inescapably innate.

Hi Pixy,

How do you know these things possess a sense of personal identity?

If I apply a general anaesthetic to the body of the individual labelled "Nick227", the consciousness associated with that body is switched off. No other consciousness is affected. Nor does applying a general anaesthetic to any other body affect the consciousness associated with the individual labelled "Nick227".

I don't understand how this has anything to do with the experience of personal identity. Can you explain more?

I just substantiated it empirically.

I don't really see how observing a venus fly-trap plant closing on a fly empirically demonstrates that the human sense of having a personal identity is valid. Could you explain more?

Nick

[Nick227]

If it affects nothing physical, and the world is the same, what purpose does it serve to make the distinction between what appears to be so, and what is actually so? If there's no way to tell the difference, what does it matter?

Hi Joe,

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

Nick

[PixyMisa]

How do you know these things possess a sense of personal identity?
I don't.

They do, however, conclusively demonstrate the physical nature of limited selfhood.

I don't understand how this has anything to do with the experience of personal identity. Can you explain more?
It doesn't. It does, however, conclusively demonstrate the physical nature of limited selfhood.

I don't really see how observing a venus fly-trap plant closing on a fly empirically demonstrates that the human sense of having a personal identity is valid. Could you explain more?
It doesn't. It does, however, conclusively demonstrate the physical nature of limited selfhood.

We demonstrate that the human sense of having a personal identity is valid by asking people if they have a personal identity. If they say yes, then it's valid. If they say no, they're lying.

[PixyMisa]

I am not presuming to know what you think. I am saying - how can you demonstrate that the thoughts, currently passing through what you experience as "your" mind, have possession at all? That they belong to anyone, or better, any limited entity? The experience you are apparently having, that the thoughts passing through the mind are "yours," is being constructed by the mind. The thoughts pass anyway, the senses take in information anyway, but the notion that any of this is happening to any limited entity cannot be empirically validated.
David's thoughts are David's thoughts because they are generated by David's brain. If we take away David's brain, David has no more thoughts.

And the term "David" is just a label attached to a physically distinct assembly of matter.

Possession? Belonging? Not relevant. Possibly not even meaningful.

[PixyMisa]

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.
Ah, insanity. Is there nothing it can't do?

[JoeEllison]

Hi Joe,

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

Nick

Yeah, insanity must be really fun! :rolleyes:

So, how do you show, objectively, the difference between what you claim being a consequence of "non-duality," idle fantasy and imagination, and pure nutball craziness?

[JoeEllison]

Ah, insanity. Is there nothing it can't do?

It can't be of any use towards adding to our knowledge of the universe, can it?

[lupus_in_fabula]

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction.

The problem with this argument is that you use one label (mind) in order to rid yourself from another label (self). But on the positive side thou: one label less to shoot down in the future.

One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.

Who experienced this ‘never born’ and ‘never die’ awareness?

[Dancing David]

You know...I spent about an hour staring at that post and searching out the terms I was unfamiliar with. Turns out it was only the terms and not the basic concepts that were a stumbling block.

Mind you I'm still hung up on 'pattern recognition' paradigm.

How would you describe your mysticism and it's relationship with the material world ? From reading your post I'm under the impression that there isn't much of, if any relationship and your mystic explorations are more geared to examining your own perceptions about how you, personally view things and, by extension, how others view things.

I find intuition to be rather straight forward there's certain clues given off by people and situations that one can be sensitive to but not necessarily identify on the spot. maybe, in retrospect one could think about those "clues" and rationalise their feelings.

However, at the time one is making a decision based on intuition it can seem like "the vibes" are being communicated to you from an outside source.


Depends on the variety of mysticism, I grew as the religous one in a religously preoccupied household (I'm feeling better, I think I will go for a walk.), then got into shamanism, paganism, wicca and ceremonial magic and buddhism.

There are different aspects to human existance and mysticism allows you to dialouge with certain ones. When you invoke a diety it doesn't matter if they are real or not, you will have certain effects. The real rpoblem is that most people don't foolw the traditiona guidelines for the practice of magic. What happens in the circle stays in the circle, it is like electrical insulation. You do not want to confuse the real and spiritual realms, that is like gounding out a high voltage wire. Ouch.

[martu]

You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant! One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.
Nick

Hello Nick

Have you read any Sachs? Or Blackmore as suggested earlier on? If you have please read them again, if not please read them for the first time.

One further question:
Are you so sure "you'll never die" that you'd kill yourself*?

*or whatever it is you think that mass of carbon\water\iron etc is

[lupus_in_fabula]

Nick... please read some books on the subject of conciousness. "Conversations on Consciousness", edited by Susan Blackmore, is an excellent starting point...

Have you read any Sachs? Or Blackmore as suggested earlier on? If you have please read them again, if not please read them for the first time.

I also agree; Blackmore’s book is a good introduction. For people coming from the Advaita Vedanta (or neo-advaita) tradition, the chapter with Metzinger can be a real eye opener.

[volatile]

Hello Nick

Have you read any Sachs? Or Blackmore as suggested earlier on? If you have please read them again, if not please read them for the first time.

One further question:
Are you so sure "you'll never die" that you'd kill yourself*?

*or whatever it is you think that mass of carbon\water\iron etc is

Might I also add the somewhat contentious but incredibly well written "Consciousness Explained" by Dan Dennett to that list. In fact, there's a whole chapter in there called "The Reality of Selves" where he outlines the problems with your lines of thought, Nick.

[martu]

Oops yes forgot Dennet very good call volatile.

[Stout]

David, that's an impressive collection of disciplines to study:)

So are you saying that your mysticism has zero effect on the material world and is something you do strictly for emotional reasons ? You do it to make yourself happy, or simply because you want to and you're not actually seeking out super powers in your study of Magick ?

[John Freestone]

Hi Nick, I've been enjoying your posts, trying to work out what you mean (what you know or believe, etc.), from my limited knowledge of this subject. I was very glad you got what I was talking about. We're rather outnumbered here, but not quite so rare generally. It was good to read your reply to Joe
You will for sure know the difference if you experience non-duality. The information you experience is less processed by the mind, because you have removed the filter of the subject-object distinction. What does it matter? Can't quite answer that one! Most people that experience it do regard it as something significant!but that's the problem here - we're talking about something experienced, which is ubiquitously reported as beyond ordinary reason, so when we try to 'point to it', anyone who hasn't experienced it is going to dismiss it as irrational. Sometimes the term transrational is used.

I was amazed to read
One thing you will become aware of is that, actually, you were never born and you will never die.I'm dubious of this, but don't discount it, because of that 'transrational' problem. You may have experienced this. I may experience this. Everyone may experience this, or only some people. Your experience may be real, it may be illusion. There might be no difference between the two...

Anyway, I just wanted to support you in sharing the view, and let you know that some members are happy to hear unsubstantiated opinion or reports of subjective experience and not demand proof or evidence.

Your statement did put a spanner in the works, though, for me. I was just thinking how similar some of the transrational/spiritual/phenomenological ideas were to the materialist/naturalist/p-zombie ones. The Buddha's doctrine of "no-self" seems to be close to the mechanism of some naturalists here, where the subject is all but refuted, or absolutely refuted.

I've read Susan Blackmore's overview of consciousness studies, and it all pointed to the 'hard problem' still being as hard as ever. I read the other day on her website again, where she describes a theory of consciousness as narratives constructed from different strands of experiential data in memory, for instance, which challenges the common assumption that we have a single 'stream of consciousness' being absorbed and proposes instead a multiple or mixed repository of data in the brain from which a narrative is constructed in answer to a biological need to use certain information (a 'probe' I think the word is, I suppose like a query to a database). This helps to explain the way we are mostly unconscious, but can catch ourselves and learn to develop mindfulness by asking ourselves regularly "What am I conscious of now?" We then construct a narative backwards out of memory that was not in consciousness.

However, such theories always leave a little gap (IMHO) between bio-mechanical functioning and what I understand as subjectivity, rather like very complex versions of the homunculus inside your head watching the screen of your vision...the question of how the little men feel they are living entities requires more little men inside their heads ad infinitum. In this example, I would ask what it means that a 'narrative is constructed' when the real question of consciousness that I believe we are really trying to get to the bottom of is - who is relating a narrative to whom? Of course, you can, and maybe Blackmore would, say 'no-one'.

I vaguely understand and accept people believing that intentionless - I'm trying to think of a better term - oh yes, Spiritless, unconscious matter can do such clever computations that it ends up 'reflecting' to itself in its dead universe and thus causes what we, 'possessors' of a human brain, experience as being alive. I just don't find it convincing.

I am wondering whether these are quite different selves that are being negated, however, by Buddhism and materialism. I daren't speculate further, not being an expert in either. A massive complication comes from the multiplicity of different views I am artificially grouping into a dualistic framework. The 'scientists' here keep surprising me by how different their views are, and the range of ideas of a 'spritual' nature is also massive. Furthermore, since each of the dual views are made up of hundreds or thousands of different ideas (like 'identity', 'birth', 'mind') and their relationships (like 'each body has a separate mind'), that discussions of this sort are almost impossible even ignoring the transrational problem!

Then there's someone like Dancing David - you make my head hurt!I am a p-zombie, I have all the attributes of consciousness but I am not conscious.
You see it's that last bit I just can't imagine anyone saying, feeling or believing. I can only imagine that their worldview is so gripping that it has overshaddowed their immediate, absolute, subjective knowledge of existing. Again, no problem that we're different, just can't get my head round "I am not conscious". How do you know you're not conscious unless you're conscious of having some grasp of that knowledge? - - - No, I think I do understand how you could answer that. Is it that there's a kind of not-you that is an illusion of being a subject caused by physical brain matter (but you have seen through it, thanks to science)?

AND you believe in a non-real spiritual realm that shouldn't be mixed up with reality? Ouch indeed.

[PixyMisa]

It was good to read your reply to Joe
but that's the problem here - we're talking about something experienced, which is ubiquitously reported as beyond ordinary reason, so when we try to 'point to it', anyone who hasn't experienced it is going to dismiss it as irrational. Sometimes the term transrational is used.
If it's not rational, it's not rational.

I've read Susan Blackmore's overview of consciousness studies, and it all pointed to the 'hard problem' still being as hard as ever.
"Hard problem" consciousness is a problem with philosophy, not a problem with understanding consciousness. All it is, is idealists mistaking language for reality.

We then construct a narative backwards out of memory that was not in consciousness.
This explanation is supported by experimental evidence.

I would ask what it means that a 'narrative is constructed' when the real question of consciousness that I believe we are really trying to get to the bottom of is - who is relating a narrative to whom? Of course, you can, and maybe Blackmore would, say 'no-one'.
Not quite. The narrative is you.

I vaguely understand and accept people believing that intentionless - I'm trying to think of a better term - oh yes, Spiritless, unconscious matter can do such clever computations that it ends up 'reflecting' to itself in its dead universe and thus causes what we, 'possessors' of a human brain, experience as being alive. I just don't find it convincing.
Why not? What phenomena does this fail to explain?

No, I think I do understand how you could answer that. Is it that there's a kind of not-you that is an illusion of being a subject caused by physical brain matter (but you have seen through it, thanks to science)?
I think David is wrong here. Consciousness can be described as an illusion, but illusions are real; they're just not what they appear to be. But as I said earlier, an illusion of information is information; an illusion of consciousness is consciousness, just misunderstood.

[Stout]

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 ?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This brings me full circle. Stop for a moment and experience your consciousness. Now which is more absolutely undeniable, you (subject), or all that stuff out there you believe in?

I'm almost late for a great discussion!! Of course you can deny consciousness, you can deny anything ;) but things are a bit more complex than what materialist are able to think.

I have argued extensively here with some hard core materialists, exposing all their weakness and rendering their beloved materialism as what it is... SIMPLY WOO. Yet, as I believe you know by now, they keep posting the same nonsense over and over and over ;) just like every other woo.

Anyway, I will read here and there and post comments soon.