Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[Nick227]

It seems to me indisputable that science is a useful thing for changing the shape of our world, making life easier and creating exciting TV. But can it actually tell us anything about the nature of reality? I would consider both materialism and evolution theory as pointing toward science being of limited value.

Considering materialism, it seems to me inevitable that if materialism is true then selfhood is simply a process. If selfhood is merely a process then there is no actual subject (as in subject-object) and so no actual objectivity. Objectivity collapses into simply a behaviour, and not something which can be used to make meaningful statements about how reality is. This has to seriously undermine the value of science.

Considering evolution, if evolution theory is correct, then human phenomenology developed through natural selection. This means that the world appears the way it does because this way helps the organism survive and procreate. As tendencies towards philosophy or pontificating about the nature of reality are unlikely to be evolutionarily favoured, I think it would be hard to state that this "eat and ****" world that appears to us is likely to reveal what it actually is.

Thus I think it is fair to say that if materialism and evolution theory are true then the value of science must be undermined.

Nick

[paximperium]

I don't get the question.

Science is a tool. It's primary use is to create a model of nature that approximates reality to the best of out understanding. I don't see how it is undermined at all.

[Nick227]

I don't get the question.

Science is a tool. It's primary use is to create a model of nature that approximates reality to the best of out understanding. I don't see how it is undermined at all.

But is it realistic to consider that it has much chance here? It seems to me that natural selection has caused us to want to know what causes things and what things are made of, and likely to want to consider that they are material (tangible). But that simultaneously, natural selection has created a phenomenology to fulfil entirely different functions - survival and reproduction. Thus, is it realistic to consider that science can likely tell us anything about the nature of reality aside of why we want to know?

Relating to materialism, what I would say we do know is that if materialism is correct then selfhood is just a process. This means that although we experience a division between subject and object, this apparent division occurs only through the action of specific neurological functions driven to exist again through natural selection. Thus objectivity is actually just evolutionarily derived behaviour, and science likewise. If there is no actual objectivity, if objectivity is simply behaviour...then what is science, aside of a tool to change our surroundings?

Nick

[paximperium]

But is it realistic to consider that it has much chance here? It seems to me that natural selection has caused us to want to know what causes things and what things are made of, and likely to want to consider that they are material (tangible). But that simultaneously, natural selection has created a phenomenology to fulfil entirely different functions - survival and reproduction. Thus, is it realistic to consider that science can likely tell us anything about the nature of reality aside of why we want to know?
But that is the limitation of human perception and function and yet we still manage to overcome these limitations by creating models and analogies. Particle physics, cosmology and quantum physics are as anti-human perception as you can get and yet we still manage to do so.

We may hit a point where a specific facet of "reality" becomes impossible for the human mind to comprehend...at that point, does it matter anymore?


Relating to materialism, what I would say we do know is that if materialism is correct then selfhood is just a process. This means that although we experience a division between subject and object, this apparent division occurs only through the action of specific neurological functions driven to exist again through natural selection. Thus objectivity is actually just evolutionarily derived behaviour, and science likewise. If there is no actual objectivity, if objectivity is simply behaviour...then what is science, aside of a tool to change our surroundings?

Nick
Science is a tool. It is a tool used to understand our surroundings, nothing more, nothing less. As a tool it has flaws and it comes with presuppositions. It cannot do everything but it sure is the best tool we have to figure out the reality of nature.

It may be a flawed model of reality but as long as we get it close enough, does it really matter?

Do we have anything better?

[Darat]

Pragmatically what does it matter?

[paximperium]

Pragmatically what does it matter?

Why are you so much more elegant than my long drawn out essay?

[Hokulele]

It seems to me that natural selection has caused us to want to know what causes things and what things are made of, and likely to want to consider that they are material (tangible). But that simultaneously, natural selection has created a phenomenology to fulfil entirely different functions - survival and reproduction. Thus, is it realistic to consider that science can likely tell us anything about the nature of reality aside of why we want to know?


I think you may be a bit mistaken as to the process of natural selection. It doesn't so much select for certain traits or behaviors, as select against. Too slow? Welcome to the lunch menu. Too stupid to get out of the rain? Welcome to death by pneumonia. Having large brains that cause us to want to know what causes things may simply be an accident or a by-product of another feature that proved advantageous (general intelligence). Since wanting to know what causes things and what things are made of isn't necessarily a debilitating trait (unless you are Archimedes), natural selection most likely will not select against organisms displaying this trait.

[Twiler]

What is selfhood?

[Theophage]

How can materialism and evolution undermine science, when it is science that gives evidence for evolution and (to a somewhat limited extent) materialism?

Is that the same as saying that science is self undermining?

[the PC apeman]

What is selfhood?Fascination with the ability to be fascinated by navel gazing.

[Nick227]

Science is a tool. It is a tool used to understand our surroundings, nothing more, nothing less. As a tool it has flaws and it comes with presuppositions. It cannot do everything but it sure is the best tool we have to figure out the reality of nature.

It may be a flawed model of reality but as long as we get it close enough, does it really matter?

Do we have anything better?

To feed our natural drive for knowledge, you mean? It's hard to assess because scientists are obsessed with objectivity, yet materialism indicates that objectivity is just a behaviour.

Nick

[Nick227]

I think you may be a bit mistaken as to the process of natural selection. It doesn't so much select for certain traits or behaviors, as select against. Too slow? Welcome to the lunch menu. Too stupid to get out of the rain? Welcome to death by pneumonia. Having large brains that cause us to want to know what causes things may simply be an accident or a by-product of another feature that proved advantageous (general intelligence). Since wanting to know what causes things and what things are made of isn't necessarily a debilitating trait (unless you are Archimedes), natural selection most likely will not select against organisms displaying this trait.

I agree. We are driven to want to understand causation. But the phenomenology that surrounds us was created to enable the organism survive and procreate. Our senses are developed for this.

Nick

[Nick227]

Pragmatically what does it matter?

Well, it depends just how deep a desire for truth evolution created in your particular body. Objectivity is favoured as a socially-reinforcing, selfhood-reinforcing behaviour, but I would say that if you are really monist materialist then objectivity can clearly be seen to be a fantasy. So, one is left with a decision to make...do you forsake the fantasy for whatever else is left...do you quit monism or materialism....or do you ****** off and find something better to do with your time?!

Nick

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Considering materialism, it seems to me inevitable that if materialism is true then selfhood is simply a process. If selfhood is merely a process then there is no actual subject (as in subject-object) and so no actual objectivity. Objectivity collapses into simply a behaviour, and not something which can be used to make meaningful statements about how reality is. This has to seriously undermine the value of science.
What do you mean by "there is no actual subject"? What sort of subject-thing has to exist in order that there be a subject/object dichotomy? Are you sure it's not really just a spectrum based on the relative universality of observations?


Considering evolution, if evolution theory is correct, then human phenomenology developed through natural selection. This means that the world appears the way it does because this way helps the organism survive and procreate. As tendencies towards philosophy or pontificating about the nature of reality are unlikely to be evolutionarily favoured, I think it would be hard to state that this "eat and ****" world that appears to us is likely to reveal what it actually is.
Agreed. There is no way to know "what actually is."

~~ Paul

[Nick227]

What do you mean by "there is no actual subject"? What sort of subject-thing has to exist in order that there be a subject/object dichotomy? Are you sure it's not really just a spectrum based on the relative universality of observations?

I don't quite understand your last question. What I mean, however, by "there is no actual subject" is just that. The assumption of objectivity is that there are phenomena within the field of examination which are irreducibly different - specifically "I" and "other stuff." And that thus there is one system "I" examining another system "not I." This is the basis of objectivity. But this presumption is simply created by a number of brain processes derived from evolution. There is nothing innately real about it. Thus although objectivity can be seen to be evolutionarily favoured, this does not give it any innate value as an investigational tool. Objectivity feels great, but this does not mean it is actually useful.

Nick

[Nick227]

How can materialism and evolution undermine science, when it is science that gives evidence for evolution and (to a somewhat limited extent) materialism?

But evolution is not necessarily reciprocally altruistic here! And materialism not necessarily caring. Science may have supported these two philosophies but they will not necessarily do the same for science. The three might have made an effective "memeplex" for some years but, you know what they say...three's a crowd!

Nick

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't quite understand your last question. What I mean, however, by "there is no actual subject" is just that. The assumption of objectivity is that there are phenomena within the field of examination which are irreducibly different - specifically "I" and "other stuff."
Why do you think so? Objectivity is just an attempt to eliminate inconsistencies due to different observers. I don't think "I" am fundamentally different from any other component of reality.

And that thus there is one system "I" examining another system "not I." This is the basis of objectivity.
It is clearly true that I am not the entire universe. But the system I am examining includes "I."

But this presumption is simply created by a number of brain processes derived from evolution. There is nothing innately real about it.
There is nothing inately "real" about anything.

Thus although objectivity can be seen to be evolutionarily favoured, this does not give it any innate value as an investigational tool. Objectivity feels great, but this does not mean it is actually useful.
Why not? If a bunch of people carefully observe a phenomenon and reach the same conclusions about how it operates, then there is an advantage over one or two people taking a quick glance and jumping to conclusions. So objectivity is useful.

It is certainly possible that our conclusions about external reality are clouded by the fact that we evolved to experience the external world in certain ways. Perhaps we are fooling ourselves and the external world is just a bowlful of green jello. As I said above, there is no way to know what "really is," but that does not make objectivity worthless.

~~ Paul

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't quite understand your last question. What I mean, however, by "there is no actual subject" is just that. The assumption of objectivity is that there are phenomena within the field of examination which are irreducibly different - specifically "I" and "other stuff." And that thus there is one system "I" examining another system "not I." This is the basis of objectivity. But this presumption is simply created by a number of brain processes derived from evolution. There is nothing innately real about it. Thus although objectivity can be seen to be evolutionarily favoured, this does not give it any innate value as an investigational tool. Objectivity feels great, but this does not mean it is actually useful.

Nick


Yeah, but keep in mind that the whole "science is objective" bit was simply a means by which the Royal Society sought to keep out of the poor graces of the church. They feared that the church might interfere with scientific investigation on the grounds that it was one person's view (think Galileo, though that affair was much more complicated). That is why they adopted the stance of providing "objective" views of the world and also the reason why they decided to use passive voice for reporting data. It's sort of like "objective journalism" which was a marketing ploy of the New York Times back in the day. It worked to sell newspapers, but it didn't describe reality.

That objectivity is a phantasm, as much as is subjectivity, is really beside the point. Science isn't objective. That's just the Fox News spin created by the Royal Society.

There is no objective. That's part of the reason why I dislike that word. What we see is intersubjectivity -- though, of course, the subject itself may be more fantasy than reality.

Evolution, if this theory is correct, has indeed left "us" with a particular way of viewing the world. "We" have no choice but to see the world as ordered, since order is the only means by which we could exist and by which our brains could work in the way they do.

Nothing is undermined. To argue an undermining of science is to buy into the spin and not the reality. It simply *is*. Everything simply *is*. Ultimately, 'we' cannot tell anything else about it.

The bottom line with science is that it works. It works for creatures like us. So, let's go with it.

Ultimate reality? Can't get there from here. Too much baggage from the outset.

[ponderingturtle]

Considering evolution, if evolution theory is correct, then human phenomenology developed through natural selection. This means that the world appears the way it does because this way helps the organism survive and procreate. As tendencies towards philosophy or pontificating about the nature of reality are unlikely to be evolutionarily favoured, I think it would be hard to state that this "eat and ****" world that appears to us is likely to reveal what it actually is.


Well this demonstrates a poor understanding of evolution, and how people think.

What was favored by evolution was abstract thought, it permited things like planning with others about responces to events, and permitted forethought.

This also permited the development of tools that where a significant survival advantage. Philosophical thought is not something that specificialy evolved but is a side effect of advantageous thought processes.

[ponderingturtle]

Why are you so much more elegant than my long drawn out essay?

He's British?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Reading this thread makes me want to find my p-zombie and beat him up.

[Silentknight]

*sigh*

Why does having something scientifically explained necessarily have to take all the wonder, beauty, and potential out of it?

[paximperium]

To feed our natural drive for knowledge, you mean? It's hard to assess because scientists are obsessed with objectivity, yet materialism indicates that objectivity is just a behaviour.

Nick

Actually no.

Objectivity basically means consistency and reproducibility and is limited by the tools we have. An presupposition of science is causality and objectivity is one facet of this.

Our natural senses as tools are limited and flawed. In the 1800s we could not objectively determine the composition of atoms just as today we still cannot objectively look into a black hole.

[lupus_in_fabula]

We humans have this interesting ability for knowing what kinds of observations are most likely to be only private, and which ones are likely to also be publicly observable. What science has offered is unique in the sense that it has also shown us that what we previously though would only stay within the parameters of private experience, isn't necessarily so.

Science itself has illuminated the apparent relativity of the "subjective"/"objective" divide. I.e., it's not the division that's problematic, but rather the difficult task of formalization and systematization, so that we might gain maximal reliability.

[Nick227]

Well this demonstrates a poor understanding of evolution, and how people think.

What was favored by evolution was abstract thought, it permited things like planning with others about responces to events, and permitted forethought.

This also permited the development of tools that where a significant survival advantage. Philosophical thought is not something that specificialy evolved but is a side effect of advantageous thought processes.

I'm not disputing that abstract thought is favoured. I'm pointing out that in all liklihood actual phenomenology is strongly "survive and procreate." How the world appears to us, through our senses, is dictated by these needs, not any desire for a philosophical or scientific understanding of the nature of reality.

Thus the desire for understanding many of us experience could be the result of simply a conflict of different aspects of evolution. Our thinking processes are driven to "want to understand." Our phenomenology was created to help us eat, defend ourselves, and mate.

Nick

[Nick227]

That objectivity is a phantasm, as much as is subjectivity, is really beside the point. Science isn't objective. That's just the Fox News spin created by the Royal Society.

There is no objective. That's part of the reason why I dislike that word. What we see is intersubjectivity -- though, of course, the subject itself may be more fantasy than reality.

Evolution, if this theory is correct, has indeed left "us" with a particular way of viewing the world. "We" have no choice but to see the world as ordered, since order is the only means by which we could exist and by which our brains could work in the way they do.

Nothing is undermined. To argue an undermining of science is to buy into the spin and not the reality. It simply *is*. Everything simply *is*. Ultimately, 'we' cannot tell anything else about it.

The bottom line with science is that it works. It works for creatures like us. So, let's go with it.

Ultimate reality? Can't get there from here. Too much baggage from the outset.

I would largely agree. Yet to me there still remains this mass delusional belief in science as some oracle to provide us with understanding of our world and who we are. I don't like that so many people place so much faith in something which, upon clear close examination can be seen to be delusional.

My point is that objectivity is evolutionarily favoured, and this is why it is attractive, not because it actually offer a means to understand the nature of reality.

Nick

[Nick227]

Actually no.

Objectivity basically means consistency and reproducibility and is limited by the tools we have. An presupposition of science is causality and objectivity is one facet of this.

Our natural senses as tools are limited and flawed. In the 1800s we could not objectively determine the composition of atoms just as today we still cannot objectively look into a black hole.

Objectivity can provide consistency for sure. As long as the neurological functions which support the organism's sense of self are in good working order (along with sensory systems, tools, machines, etc) then it can give very consistent results. And objectivity feels good. When I worked in a lab, years ago, it always felt great to get data and interpretations replicated by another team, and crap when they didn't. No doubt about it. However, none of this means that science or objectivity actually allow us to understand the nature of reality. Science just allows us to consistently manipulate reality. That's handy for the organism but it does not tell us so much really.

I appreciate your point about machines. Machines augment our natural facilities in our quest for knowlege. But there are still big issues for science around selfhood. Materialism, unlike most idealism, demonstrates that selfhood must be a process (well, materialist monism does anyway) not something innate to the collection of particles which comprises the functioning organism. This does leave science and objectivity as mere behaviours, as I see it. Tools regardless. Science feels good. It does not necessarily tell us much.

Nick

[Mashuna]

However, none of this means that science or objectivity actually allow us to understand the nature of reality. Science just allows us to consistently manipulate reality. That's handy for the organism but it does not tell us so much really.


Surely being able to consistently manipulate reality gives some understanding as to its nature?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would largely agree. Yet to me there still remains this mass delusional belief in science as some oracle to provide us with understanding of our world and who we are. I don't like that so many people place so much faith in something which, upon clear close examination can be seen to be delusional.

My point is that objectivity is evolutionarily favoured, and this is why it is attractive, not because it actually offer a means to understand the nature of reality.

Nick



I see two ways to comment: (1) But it does provide us with understanding of our world and who we are (not only pragmatically, but theoretically, it provides us with the means to negotiate, understand and survive the environment we encounter and to understand and interact with other human beings); and (2) of course, it cannot provide us with the certainty of ultimate reality (our knowledge is necessarily boot-strapped from our evolutionary inheritance).

But, science isn't concerned with the nature of ultimate reality. It is concerned with understanding as much of it as possible, whether we can arrive at the heart or not. We have to accept the fact that we may never be able to reach it, but we should also consider the possibility that the general problem-solving ability that is "us" may also be the necessary tool to enable understanding of ultimate reality. What better than a mind forged through survival to "get the truth"?

While I can see both sides of this coin (and to mix a metaphor beyond recognition), I agree firmly with the "we can't get there from here" camp. I think we are too limited.

[Phaedrus74]

Seems to me the only thing under threat is a rather unsophisticated "Teen Scientist" view of Science: Science doesn't offer a way out of the cave (as this view seems to promise). From this you seem to draw the conclusion that we are stuck in the cave, when in fact there was no cave to begin with!

But I am guessing I misunderstand your concerns, could you explain what brought on this moment of (existential?) doubt?

Jeroen.

[MRC_Hans]

I see two different questions here (and correct me if I'm wrong, Nick):

One is: Can materialism really tell us all about reality?

And the answer is, like several have already noted, most likely: No.

There are several reasons for this, but I think they can mainly be boiled down to the fact that we are inside reality, looking out. This keeps us from seeing reality in its entirety.

However, materialism does not make the claim that we can know all, only that all is ultimately knowable.

The other question is about evolition, and is a very different question. It is a religious question and seems to stem from the hope that evolution could somehow be discredited on scientific grounds. The short answer here is: Sorry, it can't.

Hans

[Ichneumonwasp]

Seems to me the only thing under threat is a rather unsophisticated "Teen Scientist" view of Science: Science doesn't offer a way out of the cave (as this view seems to promise). From this you seem to draw the conclusion that we are stuck in the cave, when in fact there was no cave to begin with!




Good point. If it is the case that we can't get there from here, it is also necessarily the case that there is a projection, created by us here.

[Phaedrus74]

Good point. If it is the case that we can't get there from here, it is also necessarily the case that there is a projection, created by us here.

Correct, which is not to say that it can't be very useful to postulate a "there" (i.e. objectivity) this usage did not develop (dare I say "evolve") because it served no purpose.

But in the end, there is no there there, there is only different instances of here. What is great about the scientific method is that it (largely) succeeds in abstracting away the irrelevant bits of the different moments an obsevation takes place and allows us to reliably predict what "here" will look like under different circumstances.

[Dancing David]

I think you may be a bit mistaken as to the process of natural selection. It doesn't so much select for certain traits or behaviors, as select against. Too slow? Welcome to the lunch menu. Too stupid to get out of the rain? Welcome to death by pneumonia. Having large brains that cause us to want to know what causes things may simply be an accident or a by-product of another feature that proved advantageous (general intelligence). Since wanting to know what causes things and what things are made of isn't necessarily a debilitating trait (unless you are Archimedes), natural selection most likely will not select against organisms displaying this trait.


Thanks Hokulele, I am not reading N227 as he is on IGNORE for me, but that is well put.

My candidate for large brains is , upright gait>narrow pelvis, neotany of infant>greater develoment of brain.

Nich starts with Plato and works backwards from there.

[Dancing David]

What is selfhood?


An illusiory lable applied to transitory physical states in organic beings.

[Dancing David]

*sigh*

Why does having something scientifically explained necessarily have to take all the wonder, beauty, and potential out of it?


because stars being granis of sand in a large area is daunting.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/index.html

If you put in .4 mm for a grain of sand as the sun you find out alpha proxima centauri is 7.2 miles away.

If you put in .0625 then it is 1.1 miles.

So the sun as a grain of sand is not in a cathedral, it is in a small town or large town.

And that we are on a fleck around that sand grain and can see things very far away is too cool for some.

[Loss Leader]

Thus I think it is fair to say that if materialism and evolution theory are true then the value of science must be undermined.


I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an essay.

[Nick227]

I see two ways to comment: (1) But it does provide us with understanding of our world and who we are (not only pragmatically, but theoretically, it provides us with the means to negotiate, understand and survive the environment we encounter and to understand and interact with other human beings); and (2) of course, it cannot provide us with the certainty of ultimate reality (our knowledge is necessarily boot-strapped from our evolutionary inheritance).

But, science isn't concerned with the nature of ultimate reality. It is concerned with understanding as much of it as possible, whether we can arrive at the heart or not. We have to accept the fact that we may never be able to reach it, but we should also consider the possibility that the general problem-solving ability that is "us" may also be the necessary tool to enable understanding of ultimate reality. What better than a mind forged through survival to "get the truth"?

While I can see both sides of this coin (and to mix a metaphor beyond recognition), I agree firmly with the "we can't get there from here" camp. I think we are too limited.

My concern is essentially that science charges about hither and thither, doing this and that. Its actions are constantly portrayed in the media as some great knowledge-seeking activity. It is not. It is simply manipulating reality from the objective perspective. The whole exercise does not seem to me to be much driven by conscious awareness but rather a bunch of haphazard assumptions, most of which scientists seem blissfully unaware of.

Our investment in science is massive and scientists regard the reproducibility of results almost as some sort of deity. Yet objectivity is finally entirely reliant on just a handful of brain processes to partition our phenomenology into "I / not I." I mean, when you step back for a moment or two...it's not impressive, really it's not.

Personally, I think the world would be a far better place if some Dawkins type would really take on objectivity - the myth and the reality.

Nick

[Nick227]

The other question is about evolition, and is a very different question. It is a religious question and seems to stem from the hope that evolution could somehow be discredited on scientific grounds. The short answer here is: Sorry, it can't.

Hans

Actually, I was more pointing out that science can be at least partially discredited on evolutionary grounds!

Objectivity is massively favoured through natural selection. We need a highly tangible and objectivized world in order to get our basic needs met. Our seeking behaviour and phenomenology reflect this completely. However, this does not mean that objectivity is inherently a meaningful means for examining that world for the purpose of understanding it.

Nick

[Mashuna]

My concern is essentially that science charges about hither and thither, doing this and that. Its actions are constantly portrayed in the media as some great knowledge-seeking activity. It is not. It is simply manipulating reality from the objective perspective.

Why do you see these two things as mutually exclusive?

[Nick227]

Thanks Hokulele, I am not reading N227 as he is on IGNORE for me, but that is well put.

My candidate for large brains is , upright gait>narrow pelvis, neotany of infant>greater develoment of brain.



Personally I would figure our bizarrely large brain size results more from our capacity to imitate.

It's the same with computers. The more stuff there is out there the more processor speed, the more hard drive you need. It seems to me largely driven by the capacity to copy.

Nick

[Darat]

Actually, I was more pointing out that science can be at least partially discredited on evolutionary grounds!

Objectivity is massively favoured through natural selection. We need a highly tangible and objectivized world in order to get our basic needs met. Our seeking behaviour and phenomenology reflect this completely. However, this does not mean that objectivity is inherently a meaningful means for examining that world for the purpose of understanding it.

Nick

You've set up a contradiction. Your second paragraph precludes you being to make the claim in the first sentence.... or if you say your first paragraph is correct then it contradicts your second paragraph.

[Ichneumonwasp]

My concern is essentially that science charges about hither and thither, doing this and that. Its actions are constantly portrayed in the media as some great knowledge-seeking activity. It is not. It is simply manipulating reality from the objective perspective. The whole exercise does not seem to me to be much driven by conscious awareness but rather a bunch of haphazard assumptions, most of which scientists seem blissfully unaware of.


The people to chide about that are not the scientists but the media. The media creates this false impression of science and scientific endeavors. It is much like folks who complain about "evolutionary theory" when what really pisses them off is a particular application of evolutionary thinking to an unsolved problem -- like, humans have language because of x. That is not evolutionary theory. That is someone's idea of how natural selection might result in a certain trait. This is often coupled with media frenzy -- look the scientists have explained the origin of language -- just like when some new gene is discovered that might play into a behavior and it becomes "the aggression gene" or "the I want to shag blondes gene".

It's all just misrepresentation of science.

Our investment in science is massive and scientists regard the reproducibility of results almost as some sort of deity. Yet objectivity is finally entirely reliant on just a handful of brain processes to partition our phenomenology into "I / not I." I mean, when you step back for a moment or two...it's not impressive, really it's not.

Personally, I think the world would be a far better place if some Dawkins type would really take on objectivity - the myth and the reality.

Nick


I don't know, but I think that takes it a bit too far. Not a deity, but certainly highly, highly important. Reproducibility of results is precisely how we know that some bit of info is reliable.

As to taking on objectivity, philosophers have been doing it for years. They just don't write as well as Dawkins, so no one reads their stuff.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Objectivity is massively favoured through natural selection. We need a highly tangible and objectivized world in order to get our basic needs met. Our seeking behaviour and phenomenology reflect this completely. However, this does not mean that objectivity is inherently a meaningful means for examining that world for the purpose of understanding it. You've set up a contradiction. Your second paragraph precludes you being to make the claim in the first sentence.... or if you say your first paragraph is correct then it contradicts your second paragraph.

Interesting observation.

The contradiction might stem from the unnecessary distinction between knowledge-seeking and manipulation. They appear to merely be two sides of the same coin.

[Nick227]

You've set up a contradiction. Your second paragraph precludes you being to make the claim in the first sentence.... or if you say your first paragraph is correct then it contradicts your second paragraph.

It is somewhat paradoxical, I must admit! However, natural selection as a theory, if correct, does not require objectivity to be correct. It is simply that we typically validate theories through repeated reproduction of test results. In the specific case of natural selection it seems to me rather that the data do largely fit the theory, objective analysis regardless. Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not completely clear for me.

If natural selection is correct, then as I see it objectivity must be considered highly favoured and this should reduce its value as a bias or error reducing tool. Objectivity can be classed as primarily a behaviour.

However, in considering these things, I do see another issue which I hadn't previously thought of. The human organism is a relatively complex system, selfhood regardless. Thus a case could be made that this relative complexity and functional integrity confers at least a reasonable degree of value to objective analysis, regardless of whether the organism itself considers it has selfhood or not.

eta: I think the case with materialism creates a more clear sense of paradox. If materialist monism is correct then selfhood is merely a process. It does not exist except at the level of considering the whole organism. There is no actual point of observation merely the sense of it. As I see it, this must hurl a heap of doo-doo at objectivity and cast it into troubled waters, however you cut it. Much of science is left simply as what happens when we examine our world from such and such a perspective. That's it.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

In the specific case of natural selection it seems to me rather that the data do largely fit the theory, objective analysis regardless. Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not completely clear for me.

It seems to me that here you go again contradicting yourself: This data you speak of, which to you seems to fit the theory, is derived from objective evaluation of it in the first place – that’s why it is considered reliable, and that’s why the theory is ultimately considered plausible.

eta: I think the case with materialism creates a more clear sense of paradox. If materialist monism is correct then selfhood is merely a process. It does not exist except at the level of considering the whole organism. There is no actual point of observation merely the sense of it. As I see it, this must hurl a heap of doo-doo at objectivity and cast it into troubled waters, however you cut it. Much of science is left simply as what happens when we examine our world from such and such a perspective. That's it.

No. If we must choose between ontology and reliability of observation, ontology must sway. What’s the point with any particular ontology if it doesn’t follow the empirical findings?

[Nick227]

The people to chide about that are not the scientists but the media. The media creates this false impression of science and scientific endeavors. It is much like folks who complain about "evolutionary theory" when what really pisses them off is a particular application of evolutionary thinking to an unsolved problem -- like, humans have language because of x. That is not evolutionary theory. That is someone's idea of how natural selection might result in a certain trait. This is often coupled with media frenzy -- look the scientists have explained the origin of language -- just like when some new gene is discovered that might play into a behavior and it becomes "the aggression gene" or "the I want to shag blondes gene".

It's all just misrepresentation of science.

Well, yes, fair enough. But at the same time I don't see so many scientists protesting that science isn't really all it's cracked up to be. They do seem to be fairly happy to play along.



I don't know, but I think that takes it a bit too far. Not a deity, but certainly highly, highly important. Reproducibility of results is precisely how we know that some bit of info is reliable.

For sure, if that bit of info relates to survival or procreation. But for attempting to consider the nature of reality, all reproducibility of results does is confirm that if you "push here" then this and this happens.

As to taking on objectivity, philosophers have been doing it for years. They just don't write as well as Dawkins, so no one reads their stuff.

Oh, I didn't know that. Anyone specific?

Nick

[Nick227]

It seems to me that here you go again contradicting yourself: This data you speak of, which to you seems to fit the theory, is derived from objective evaluation of it in the first place – that’s why it is considered reliable, and that’s why the theory is ultimately considered plausible.

But if the theory is true is it not true evidence regardless, assuming of course there is no evidence to the contrary? Does the materialist not conclude that laws and principles can exist regardless of whether people have tested them or not? Simply because a theory is validated by objective evaluation does not mean that the principles it expounds did not exist prior to evaluation. If it subsequently diminishes the value of objectivity itself...so what?

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

But if the theory is true is it not true evidence regardless, assuming of course there is no evidence to the contrary? Does the materialist not conclude that laws and principles can exist regardless of whether people have tested them or not? Simply because a theory is validated by objective evaluation does not mean that the principles it expounds did not exist prior to evaluation.

Ultimately, it is only provisionally true. If there’s reliable evidence against it, then it cannot be said to be true in any meaningful sense. Again, you seem to have it backwards; it’s reliable evidence that makes a theory provisionally true.

You seem to imply some kind of “true truth” might exist, like “ultimate reality” in stead of just plain old reality. If that is the case, then I suggest it would be better to stick with 2 + 2 = 4; that’s true truth.

If it subsequently diminishes the value of objectivity itself...so what?

Again, the valuable thing with science is that it does the exact opposite: if reliable data diminishes the value of the theory... so what?

[Ichneumonwasp]

For sure, if that bit of info relates to survival or procreation. But for attempting to consider the nature of reality, all reproducibility of results does is confirm that if you "push here" then this and this happens.

Yes, but it may relate to survival because it accurately reflects what is really out there. How else could a blind watchmaker account for more babies?



Oh, I didn't know that. Anyone specific?

Nick

Richard Rorty for one. Most of the post-sturcturalists have much to say about the absence of clear objectivity.

Derrida is all about decentering, but it's hard to pin down what he thinks because virtually all of his writing is an extended philosophical jokey word-game.

[Nick227]

Ultimately, it is only provisionally true. If there’s reliable evidence against it, then it cannot be said to be true in any meaningful sense. Again, you seem to have it backwards; it’s reliable evidence that makes a theory provisionally true.

Personally, I would say that it is rather the lack of reliable contradictory evidence that carries more weight. This regardless, it seems to me that a theory can still be simply true. It can be that the principle of natural selection is simply true. We cannot ultimately validate it, to the nth degree, but this does not mean that actually it hasn't dictated the progress of life upon this planet since organisms began forming.

Thus, if the theory of natural selection undermines the value of objectivity...so what? Where precisely is the contradiction occurring? All that is happening is that one theory is potentially diminishing the value of one perspective. Natural selection is just a principle. It can take place regardless of whether humans can validate it or not. It needs humans to call it "natural selection" and to comprehend it, but it is otherwise not depending on humans to operate. The same cannot be said of objectivity.

Now, if objectivity can raise some serious objections to the theory of natural selection then of course all bets are off. But, for this observer at least, in the event of this not happening I am fine that the "natural selection-objectivity" memeplex can start to break up a little!

Nick

[Nick227]

Yes, but it may relate to survival because it accurately reflects what is really out there. How else could a blind watchmaker account for more babies? (bold mine)

Well, I would say that evolution is again causing one to consider that this "may" has more weight to it than might be realistic. Predelictions towards science or philosophy don't seem to me to be likely evolutionarily favoured, evidenced perhaps but the distinct lack of sexiness associated with either profession. I mean, if all the ladies went for philosophers or scientists...

I figure the reasons for the survival of these disciplines comes down to the degree to which they can piggy-back onto other needs. Science does well because it examines how we can make life easier and philosophy anyway struggles.

I don't understand your comment about the babies, btw. Thanks for the other info.

Nick

[Wowbagger]

Are you suggesting that there's a better way to obtain knowledge, Nick?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

eta: I think the case with materialism creates a more clear sense of paradox. If materialist monism is correct then selfhood is merely a process. It does not exist except at the level of considering the whole organism. There is no actual point of observation merely the sense of it. As I see it, this must hurl a heap of doo-doo at objectivity and cast it into troubled waters, however you cut it. Much of science is left simply as what happens when we examine our world from such and such a perspective. That's it.
First of all, can you explain how another metaphysic, say, idealism, makes "selfhood" into something other than a process?

Second, what else could any method of examination be except an attempt to see the world from a certain perspective? Is there some world underlying this one that is perspective-neutral?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I figure the reasons for the survival of these disciplines comes down to the degree to which they can piggy-back onto other needs. Science does well because it examines how we can make life easier and philosophy anyway struggles.
That is because metaphysics is largely nonsense. Other aspects of philosophy, such as ethics, are useful.

~~ Paul

[godless dave]

Considering materialism, it seems to me inevitable that if materialism is true then selfhood is simply a process. If selfhood is merely a process then there is no actual subject

Non sequitor. "There is no actual subject" does not follow from "selfhood is merely a process".

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, I would say that evolution is again causing one to consider that this "may" has more weight to it than might be realistic. Predelictions towards science or philosophy don't seem to me to be likely evolutionarily favoured, evidenced perhaps but the distinct lack of sexiness associated with either profession. I mean, if all the ladies went for philosophers or scientists...

I figure the reasons for the survival of these disciplines comes down to the degree to which they can piggy-back onto other needs. Science does well because it examines how we can make life easier and philosophy anyway struggles.

I don't understand your comment about the babies, btw. Thanks for the other info.

Nick


The comment about the babies is code for evolution.

If evolution has equipped us with the type of mind that survives hostile environments, it may well do so because it provides those minds with the means of understanding reality, even ultimate reality.

A basic premise of materialism is that there is no mind -- no large, imposing knight in the forest -- behind it all. It (whatever it is) doesn't care. So who we are as beings that survived the hostile environment that *it* is, may provide us with a uniquely useful approach to *it*.

The point you mention is that there is not necessarily a connection between the way our minds work and what ultimate reality *is*. But, it may be the case that there is a necessary connection between the two. That simply is a distinct possibility, and evolution would actually be the best explanation as to why that would be the case -- because it would provide survival value. Survival means that you can negotiate your environment; and, for beings like us, that means understanding what we see so that we may alter our response set.

But, as Phaedrus pointed out before, you are positing a kind of Platonic ideal behind the world with this -- the idea that there is an ultimate reality. We speak of it all the time here, but when you get down to it, does that idea really make any sense except as a projection of the way our minds think?

There may be no cave from which we need to escape. Or, even if there is, it would necessarily be the case that we couldn't even see the walls -- we would experience those walls as something in our environment. We can see only what is here and available to us. We are necessarily stuck by our own boot-strapping, but that does not mean that we cannot progress in knowledge about what we describe. Just look around -- we've progressed from turtles all the way down to vibrating bits of energy assuming different harmonic forms.

In a sense, it doesn't make sense to speak of *ultimate reality*. That is why so many folks say that metaphysics is a waste of time. Those who are new to the site who hear that message immediately assume they are speaking to philistines who couldn't think their way out of a box. But some of the folks here, as I'm sure you know full well (and I don't consider myself one of them since I'm still trying to learn all this stuff), are highly philosophically sophisticated and simply don't want to mince words.

Look, for instance, at Darat's and Paul's short replies. They capture the whole argument in a few words. Their replies are not unsophisticated. They hit exactly Rorty's position -- what difference does it make? That sounds trite, but it is actually pretty important when you look further into monism. If we haven't solved a problem in 2500 years there may be a very simple explanation -- the 'problem' is either unapproachable or is not a problem at all. The 'problem' (as in *ultimate reality*) may simply be a word game.

[Darat]

It is somewhat paradoxical, I must admit! However, natural selection as a theory, if correct, does not require objectivity to be correct.

...snip...

For us to conclude it is correct requires the use of the tool that created the theory. But that means the theory itself carries within it the same flaw you think you've spotted with the tool that's the contradiction at the heart of your argument.


It is simply that we typically validate theories through repeated reproduction of test results. In the specific case of natural selection it seems to me rather that the data do largely fit the theory, objective analysis regardless. Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not completely clear for me.

...snip...

Without using "science" how do you conclude that the "the data do largely fit the theory"?



If natural selection is correct, then as I see it objectivity must be considered highly favoured and this should reduce its value as a bias or error reducing tool. Objectivity can be classed as primarily a behaviour.

...snip...

Yes it can be defined simply as a behaviour and that can be a very useful way to use it. However that is only one of its useful definitions, for instance another useful definition is "what would happen if no one was here to observe" which is not a behaviour, science can and does use variations on these useful definitions and swaps between them which can cause some confusion (especially when people start talking about a cat in a box).



However, in considering these things, I do see another issue which I hadn't previously thought of. The human organism is a relatively complex system, self-hood regardless. Thus a case could be made that this relative complexity and functional integrity confers at least a reasonable degree of value to objective analysis, regardless of whether the organism itself considers it has self-hood or not.

...snip...

If you are using the "behaviour" definition of objective than self-hood has nothing to do with it, it does not follow that a behaviour has to have "self-hood", indeed the evidence is rather overwhelming that most behaviour occurs without any "I" arising or getting involved at all.


eta: I think the case with materialism creates a more clear sense of paradox. If materialist monism is correct then selfhood is merely a process.

...snip...

Just to pause for one moment, I hold that all monisms are the same, monism on its own really just boils down to saying "there is stuff", it does not carry any baggage as to what that "stuff" is. Given that what do you mean by "materialist monism", I presume you are adding an assumption as to what that stuff is?


It does not exist except at the level of considering the whole organism.

...snip...

Yes and no.



...snip... Much of science is left simply as what happens when we examine our world from such and such a perspective. That's it.

Nick

Which takes us right back to what I asked in my first post. Pragmatically what does it matter?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Personally, I would say that it is rather the lack of reliable contradictory evidence that carries more weight. This regardless, it seems to me that a theory can still be simply true. It can be that the principle of natural selection is simply true. We cannot ultimately validate it, to the nth degree, but this does not mean that actually it hasn't dictated the progress of life upon this planet since organisms began forming.

Well, this appears to boil down to semantics now. I’m also pretty sure evolution is a fact and that natural selection, in one form or another, has indeed dictated the progress of life. Nevertheless, the implications aren’t that easy to distinguish because, if we are to understand how natural selection works, we must necessarily move beyond simply uttering the words of it, and find a more detailed form of explanation. There still seems to be some variation among scientists on that particular point.

Hence, when you talk about a theory simply being true, regardless of evidence, it lacks the sort of meaning one would expect when you move on to discussing the implications of it. You seem to enclose natural selection into a sort of black box – natural selection is true whatever it is – which consequently drives the implications you make towards something without content.

Ultimately, what the theory of natural selection tries to portray simply happens (regardless of how we portray the process); whether the theory can completely explain all that it happening, is somewhat unclear. Therefore, the theory of natural selection must be validated through evidence, because it’s necessarily an epistemic question when its boundaries are stretched and implications are derived from it. In other words: You must know what you talk about, preferably in a more detailed form, before reliably assuming what those implications in effect are.

Thus, if the theory of natural selection undermines the value of objectivity...so what? Where precisely is the contradiction occurring? All that is happening is that one theory is potentially diminishing the value of one perspective. Natural selection is just a principle. It can take place regardless of whether humans can validate it or not. It needs humans to call it "natural selection" and to comprehend it, but it is otherwise not depending of humans to operate. The same cannot be said of objectivity.

The theory doesn’t undermine the value of objectivity because it’s built on objective evidence, and that is what keeps the theory afloat. It however undermines other theories because it has good evidence to back it up, whereas rival theories don’t. The only thing that could undermine the current theory of natural selection would, again, come through objective evidence. Hence yet again, reliable evidence seems to have the last word when talking theory here. It’s the nature of evidence that decides if a theory is to be rejected all together or merely modified, and how.

What you seem to denote to, is the totality of process-X, which a theory tries to encapsulate by giving it a name and a definition, but where it’s still unclear if all the details are accounted for. But even here it seems somewhat doubtful if the implications you seem to postulate are the correct ones, because you venture into vague normative territory. So, process-X undermines the value of objectivity in regards to what?

[Nick227]

First of all, can you explain how another metaphysic, say, idealism, makes "selfhood" into something other than a process?

Idealist philosophies frequently resort to dualist or pseudo-dualist elements - souls, watchers, ground of being, this kind of thing.

Second, what else could any method of examination be except an attempt to see the world from a certain perspective? Is there some world underlying this one that is perspective-neutral?

~~ Paul

This is true, but objectivity to me frequently masquerades as something more. To answer also WB, I do not see it that there is necessarily "a better way", but more that understanding the reality of the situation is worthwhile.

Nick

[Nick227]

That is because metaphysics is largely nonsense. Other aspects of philosophy, such as ethics, are useful.

~~ Paul

But will it finally hack it in the great meme battle for survival and continuance? Philosophy needs some pretty hefty tag-team partners, if you ask me, if it's going to make it to the next round. The study of consciousness has provided a good start, I think, but there could be tough times out there.

Nick

[Nick227]

The comment about the babies is code for evolution.

If evolution has equipped us with the type of mind that survives hostile environments, it may well do so because it provides those minds with the means of understanding reality, even ultimate reality.

A basic premise of materialism is that there is no mind -- no large, imposing knight in the forest -- behind it all. It (whatever it is) doesn't care. So who we are as beings that survived the hostile environment that *it* is, may provide us with a uniquely useful approach to *it*.

The point you mention is that there is not necessarily a connection between the way our minds work and what ultimate reality *is*. But, it may be the case that there is a necessary connection between the two. That simply is a distinct possibility, and evolution would actually be the best explanation as to why that would be the case -- because it would provide survival value. Survival means that you can negotiate your environment; and, for beings like us, that means understanding what we see so that we may alter our response set.

But, as Phaedrus pointed out before, you are positing a kind of Platonic ideal behind the world with this -- the idea that there is an ultimate reality. We speak of it all the time here, but when you get down to it, does that idea really make any sense except as a projection of the way our minds think?

There may be no cave from which we need to escape. Or, even if there is, it would necessarily be the case that we couldn't even see the walls -- we would experience those walls as something in our environment. We can see only what is here and available to us. We are necessarily stuck by our own boot-strapping, but that does not mean that we cannot progress in knowledge about what we describe. Just look around -- we've progressed from turtles all the way down to vibrating bits of energy assuming different harmonic forms.

In a sense, it doesn't make sense to speak of *ultimate reality*. That is why so many folks say that metaphysics is a waste of time. Those who are new to the site who hear that message immediately assume they are speaking to philistines who couldn't think their way out of a box. But some of the folks here, as I'm sure you know full well (and I don't consider myself one of them since I'm still trying to learn all this stuff), are highly philosophically sophisticated and simply don't want to mince words.

Look, for instance, at Darat's and Paul's short replies. They capture the whole argument in a few words. Their replies are not unsophisticated. They hit exactly Rorty's position -- what difference does it make? That sounds trite, but it is actually pretty important when you look further into monism. If we haven't solved a problem in 2500 years there may be a very simple explanation -- the 'problem' is either unapproachable or is not a problem at all. The 'problem' (as in *ultimate reality*) may simply be a word game.

I'm not personally bothered with any "ultimate reality." As mentioned, it's likely just our inherited seeking behaviour that causes us to imagine such a thing and want to uncover it. As already mentioned my main problem with objectivity are the claims made in its name. Whilst we consider that objectivity tells us something meaningful about reality there is the possibility that we overlook something that may become manifest to us when we fully grasp its limitations.

Nick

[Nick227]

The theory doesn’t undermine the value of objectivity because it’s built on objective evidence, and that is what keeps the theory afloat.

It's true that the one relies on the other for credibility. But, this regardless, natural selection does undermine objectivity. To me it clearly does point to objectivity - as a group behaviour reinforcing selfhood - being evolutionarily favoured, and this must count as a weakening. We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Nick

[Mashuna]

We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Nick

I think I must be misunderstanding how you're using the term 'objectivity'

In what way are we born biased toward objectivity? I thought that objectivity was something that science had to work to achieve, due to our natural tendency to fool ourselves (for good evolutionary reasons).

[gentlehorse]

It's true that the one relies on the other for credibility. But, this regardless, natural selection does undermine objectivity. To me it clearly does point to objectivity - as a group behaviour reinforcing selfhood - being evolutionarily favoured, and this must count as a weakening.
Why?


We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Nick

Science is a tool for obtaining knowledge. The tool for obtaining knowledge actually-- Knowledge is tentative. Ontology is dead. Feeling good is irrelevant. Resistance is futile.

[paximperium]

It's true that the one relies on the other for credibility. But, this regardless, natural selection does undermine objectivity. To me it clearly does point to objectivity - as a group behaviour reinforcing selfhood - being evolutionarily favoured, and this must count as a weakening. We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Nick

No. Objectivity is often counter to group think. Objectivity is often counter intuitive.

It completely goes against what you are claiming and you are now watering the definition down to something that sounds like subjectivity. Your claim is completely and utterly false.

[Hokulele]

Nick, in addition to what others are saying, I also think you may be conflating objectivity with isolationism. There is a pernicious idea (promoted mainly by the media) that science should be restricted to the lab, and the object being studied should be isolated, restrained, and basically removed from interaction and context. While that may be true for some types of work (chemistry jumps to mind), it is extremely untrue for most scientific work. I know the term "holistic" has been hijacked by various types of woo, but it really is necessary for much of science and medicine to study not only elements of an object or organism, but those elements in context of the system and the environment.

For example, in several of your arguments concerning the brain/mind issue as it applies to evolution, you seem to isolate the brain from the rest of the creature, the creature from the rest of its species, and the species from the rest of the ecosystem. At a certain point, this can lead to false conclusions. I cannot really see how one can argue for natural selection being affected by/affecting one feature of the human animal alone, without taking into account how that one feature affects/is affected by the other parts of the human body (such as one poster's discussion of upright posture) or even the evolution of the human social structure.

You seem to be taking a bit of a reductionist view here, but maybe I am misinterpreting what you are saying.

ETA: Egad, on a re-read, I sound like a structuralist! Meh, I guess I need to re-read Derrida.

[Nick227]

I think I must be misunderstanding how you're using the term 'objectivity'

In what way are we born biased toward objectivity? I thought that objectivity was something that science had to work to achieve, due to our natural tendency to fool ourselves (for good evolutionary reasons).

For me, objectivity clearly reinforces one's sense of self and of belonging to a group. It feels good to be objective. There is a clear sense of personal boundary. There is a clear sense of a similar group, all doing the same. Accepting oneself and one's role within in a group is to me a maturation. Objectivity facilitates this and so to me will clearly be evolutionarily favoured. There's of course nothing wrong with this. It's good.

Also, for me, and I think fairly typical of the male of the species, is the desire to know "just what is going on" in the world and with the human being. I like to think that there are groups of people in lab-coats dotted around the world working hard at understanding "what is going on," providing information that I can access if I want.

So, objectivity gives me a feeling of security. It gives me the sense that I know what is going on and that it's been tested and agreed upon. I can feel a part of the group if I wish.

However, all this objectivity finally is is simply group behaviour that also reinforces selfhood. It's like a group investigation into something really, if we're honest I think, purely because it can make us feel good and feel secure. Whether it actually leads anyone into an actual understanding of the world seems to me rarely debated and generally overlooked in our desire to feel secure and a part of a group.

I'm not saying that an alternative to objectivity needs to be more reinforced. I'm not suggesting everyone descends into subjective fantasising about life and causality. Indeed I would consider objectivity a healthy antidote to such behaviour. And of course sometimes to be objective when all around you are wallowing in god-delusions or whatever is to take a considerable stand against the norm. I'm merely pointing out that science is really more about group behaviour than anything else. I'm being objective about objectivity itself.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

It's true that the one relies on the other for credibility. But, this regardless, natural selection does undermine objectivity. To me it clearly does point to objectivity - as a group behaviour reinforcing selfhood - being evolutionarily favoured, and this must count as a weakening.

…undermines objectivity in regards to what? Maybe in regards to an idealized straw man gazing out at “ultimate reality”?

Anyhow, let’s play along and see if there’s a different conclusion to your assertion. If objectivity is evolutionary favoured, shouldn’t it then be counted as a strengthening factor rather than a weakening one (in terms of value)? At least here we could say that: Objectivity has served us well in regards to survival and continuation, because it has provided us with more reliable information about our external surrounding. Surely reliable information allows for a better survival advantage than unreliable information, especially in the long run. How is this not a strengthening factor rather than a weakening one?

We are born biased towards objectivity, not because it's some great method for knowing what's going on, but because it feels good. Objectivity reinforces the feeling of selfhood and of belonging to the group. This is far more what science is about than anything else imo.

Even if we were born biased towards objectivity, I assume it would be because it is indeed a great method for knowing what is going on, which eventually allows us to feel good since it has also allowed us to survive a rather hostile environment to begin with. There’s no feeling good, or belonging to a group, or assuming identity in the group, if you’re dead.

[arthwollipot]

Seems to me that Nick is arguing in favour of solipsism.

[Nick227]

Anyhow, let’s play along and see if there’s a different conclusion to your assertion. If objectivity is evolutionary favoured, shouldn’t it then be counted as a strengthening factor rather than a weakening one (in terms of value)? At least here we could say that: Objectivity has served us well in regards to survival and continuation, because it has provided us with more reliable information about our external surrounding. Surely reliable information allows for a better survival advantage than unreliable information, especially in the long run. How is this not a strengthening factor rather than a weakening one?

The crux of this side of my argument was that objectivity does help us survive and procreate but that this does not mean that it will similarly help us to understand our world, that it will necessarily be capable of fulfilling our need to know who we are and what our world is. The information our senses provide to us, and the means by which we create effective representations of this information, are driven by natural selection. We experience the representation as "me surrounded around by other things" because this perspective is useful for food, defence and sex. Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should. The point is arguable for sure.

Nick

[Darat]

Nick if I understand your last post right - you hold a position that I agree with - "Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should." However I go back to my standing question -pragmatically what does it matter?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not personally bothered with any "ultimate reality." As mentioned, it's likely just our inherited seeking behaviour that causes us to imagine such a thing and want to uncover it. As already mentioned my main problem with objectivity are the claims made in its name. Whilst we consider that objectivity tells us something meaningful about reality there is the possibility that we overlook something that may become manifest to us when we fully grasp its limitations.

Nick


Yes, agreed. It is also possible and likely that the thing we overlook is not available to us in any circumstance, but, then, that can't matter to us.

[lupus_in_fabula]

The crux of this side of my argument was that objectivity does help us survive and procreate but that this does not mean that it will similarly help us to understand our world, that it will necessarily be capable of fulfilling our need to know who we are and what our world is.

The distinction between help to survive & procreate and understanding our world is somewhat artificial because we cannot step outside our limitations, although we can, and have, expanded our boundaries through objectivity, by creating extensions to our basic senses.

That’s probably as good as it’s going to get: Using extensions and constantly expanding our knowledge, while never reaching the ultimate perspective (which to us is probably always going to be a mere notion).

Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should. The point is arguable for sure.

Well, that would depend on the domain where it’s applied and what results people are satisfied with.

Objectivity can be seen as undermined if the expectations were too high to begin with.

[Nick227]

Nick if I understand your last post right - you hold a position that I agree with - "Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should." However I go back to my standing question -pragmatically what does it matter?

Because whilst the belief exists that objectivity is likely to "get there," something that could arise in the acceptance that objectivity likely will not get there could be blocked from taking place.

Nick

[Nick227]

Yes, agreed. It is also possible and likely that the thing we overlook is not available to us in any circumstance, but, then, that can't matter to us.

It could matter to us in that the emotional reactions created by accepting that we can't get what we seek could be significant here.

Nick

[Nick227]

The distinction between help to survive & procreate and understanding our world is somewhat artificial because we cannot step outside our limitations, although we can, and have, expanded our boundaries through objectivity, by creating extensions to our basic senses.

Machines, yes.

That’s probably as good as it’s going to get: Using extensions and constantly expanding our knowledge, while never reaching the ultimate perspective (which to us is probably always going to be a mere notion).

Well, in considering that selfhood is simply a process, the higher aspects of which are manifest really only at the level of the functioning organism, then it can be seen that really a lot could be being missed. Objectivity is self-dependent. Yet selfhood, as in the "I" aspect of selfhood, occurs relatively late in the day, only with thinking. Thus objectivity needs a lot of brain processes running properly in order to operate. You need representations. You need selfhood. You need thinking taking place creating this sense of "I." You need a mental reconstruction of the representations to create a perspective based around selfhood. This machine, this objectivity machine, needs quite a lot to crank up, so to speak.

I think when this is seen it inevitably can't help but lead to questions. Is the degree to which objectivity is needed for basic survival also mirrored in the degree to which it is needed to know more about who we are and what our world is?

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

I think when this is seen it inevitably can't help but lead to questions. Is the degree to which objectivity is needed for basic survival also mirrored in our desire to know more about who we are and what our world is?

I would say that so far it has yielded quite much, even in areas that aren’t directly involved in fulfilling our basic day-to-day survival needs (albeit perhaps indirectly later on). We simply don’t know how far our progress can go. The rate of new discoveries seems to be increasing rather than levelling out, and also illuminating areas some would have thought weren’t accessible to us at all, ever.

Objectivity is one of the most reliable means we have for understanding the world we live in, even though it seems quite plausible that understanding itself is a kind of physical process, thus making the process of knowing intimately related to the reality we seek for. :boggled:

[Darat]

Because whilst the belief exists that objectivity is likely to "get there," something that could arise in the acceptance that objectivity likely will not get there could be blocked from taking place.

Nick


Sorry I really do not follow this - if we are limited to way we can interact with "reality" (whatever it 'is' and of course if that statement even means anything at all) we are limited. We can't both be limited and then somehow not be limited.

[gentlehorse]

The crux of this side of my argument was that objectivity does help us survive and procreate but that this does not mean that it will similarly help us to understand our world, that it will necessarily be capable of fulfilling our need to know who we are and what our world is.
It provides us the avenue by which we can increase our (probabilistic) knowledge of that which is knowable. The "who and what we are" of which you speak can be addressed in terms of that which can be directly or indirectly observed. In short, it can be addressed to the extent that evidence and our increasing body of knowledge allows. If you are looking for a means to understand "who and what we are" beyond that which can be observed, then you are no longer being objective. While one might address the subject, positing ideas that will sway the emotions of the masses, the resultant information will not be reliable. One will be making stuff up because it sounds and feels good. One can get rich doing this, of course.

The information our senses provide to us, and the means by which we create effective representations of this information, are driven by natural selection. We experience the representation as "me surrounded around by other things" because this perspective is useful for food, defence and sex. Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should. The point is arguable for sure.

Nick

Agreed. "Later emerging human needs" (asthetics, for instance) are fulfilled in many ways by that which we "measure" subjectively. I like the Beatles. A lot.

[arthwollipot]

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[Phaedrus74]

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I seem to remember some german dude tried to sort that out, now what was his name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Being.2C_time.2C_and_Dasein)?

[PixyMisa]

The crux of this side of my argument was that objectivity does help us survive and procreate but that this does not mean that it will similarly help us to understand our world, that it will necessarily be capable of fulfilling our need to know who we are and what our world is.
That is a very, very silly argument then.

The information our senses provide to us, and the means by which we create effective representations of this information, are driven by natural selection.
Correct.

We experience the representation as "me surrounded around by other things" because this perspective is useful for food, defence and sex.
Correct. All the important stuff.

Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should. The point is arguable for sure.
Nope. It's pure nonsense.

Your senses would be useless for food, defence and sex if they did not accurately represent the real world. You would die.

That you are here to argue the point is in itself strong evidence that you are wrong.

[Nick227]

I would say that so far it has yielded quite much, even in areas that aren’t directly involved in fulfilling our basic day-to-day survival needs (albeit perhaps indirectly later on). We simply don’t know how far our progress can go. The rate of new discoveries seems to be increasing rather than levelling out, and also illuminating areas some would have thought weren’t accessible to us at all, ever.

Objectivity is one of the most reliable means we have for understanding the world we live in, even though it seems quite plausible that understanding itself is a kind of physical process, thus making the process of knowing intimately related to the reality we seek for. :boggled:

Objectivity has clearly yielded a great deal on one level. And it is of course "reliable" in that reliability and objectivity are intertwined. However, to test, at least in a small way, the proposition that objectivity will fulfil our needs for understanding one might ask "Are you fulfilled? Has your need for understanding actually been fulfilled by science?" My guess is that for a lot of people it seems that it has opened doorways but has not yet yielded that which might satisfy this need for understanding.

If this is so then it raises for me a couple of questions...

Firstly, do we just need to do more and more science? Maybe if we just keep studying we will get to a place where the need is fulfilled. Or it is possible that objectivity will never fulfil the need?

Secondly, is it actually realistic to expect objectivity to be able to fulfil this need? In taking a materialist perspective what is evident to me is that the processes which make up a objective, whole human are many. As I mentioned before you need a lot of processes running to really crank up to a full, objective perspective. Yet need and desire seem more primitive in their origination and it is more that they only require objectivity for their articulation. For those needs and desires which are not satisfied through articulation, is it realistic to think that they will be satisfied objectively, or is it possible that their satisfaction only comes with allowing ourselves at least a temporary release from the constraits of this mindset? This seems to me more likely.

Nick

[Darat]

...snip... In taking a materialist perspective what is evident to me is that the processes which make up a objective, whole human are many. As I mentioned before you need a lot of processes running to really crank up to a full, objective perspective. Yet need and desire seem more primitive in their origination and it is more that they only require objectivity for their articulation.

...snip...
Nick

In regards to the highlighted bit above - based on what?

[Nick227]

Nope. It's pure nonsense.

Your senses would be useless for food, defence and sex if they did not accurately represent the real world. You would die.

That you are here to argue the point is in itself strong evidence that you are wrong.

So you are saying that the real world must be known by the senses and the brain then? There is essentially no possibility of noumena-phenomena. What you see is quite simply what there is.

Nick

[Phaedrus74]

So you are saying that the real world must be known by the senses and the brain then? There is essentially no possibility of noumena-phenomena. What you see is quite simply what there is.

Nick

No, (sorry for butting in Pixy) what this means is that our beliefs about the world must be largely true. For them to be knowledge an additional requirement (justification) must be met.

[Nick227]

Sorry I really do not follow this - if we are limited to way we can interact with "reality" (whatever it 'is' and of course if that statement even means anything at all) we are limited. We can't both be limited and then somehow not be limited.

You seem to me to be assuming that "we," or "I", is somehow innate. As I see it, materialism clearly points to the realization that selfhood is a process, that the "I" is a process. It is just an aspect of being, not something inviolable. Without thinking, there is no I present.

Nick

[Nick227]

No, (sorry for butting in Pixy) what this means is that our beliefs about the world must be largely true. For them to be knowledge an additional requirement (justification) must be met.

Our body is created through natural selection. Our phenomenology the same. What is represented is dictated by natural selection. It is dictated by the ongoing promotion of that which survives and procreates the best. Thus the objective perspective itself must be acutely favoured because it offers the best possibilities for survival and procreation.

This does not mean that the objective perspective is the best for understanding who or what we are. If you experience thoughtless awareness you will be familiar with this sensation of "I"-lessness. Bloody useless for survival and not so much use for procreation! But extremely satisfying nonetheless. What becomes apparent is that we articulate needs objectively because that is what we have learned. We articulate the need as "I need..." But not all needs, not all desires can be met objectively. Simply articulating certain needs objectively can actually preclude their fulfilment, because their fulfilment requires a withdrawing of the objective perspective, not the seeking for some"thing" that will meet the need.

Nick

[Phaedrus74]

Our body is created through natural selection. Our phenomenology the same. What is represented is dictated by natural selection. It is dictated by the ongoing promotion of that which survives and procreates the best. Thus the objective perspective itself must be acutely favoured because it offers the best possibilities for survival and procreation.


This remains to be seen. So far, yes, but ask me again in a billion years...
At most we can say that (having) a concept like 'objectivity' is not disastruously detrimental to our survival as a species.


This does not mean that the objective perspective is the best for understanding who or what we are. If you experience thoughtless awareness you will be familiar with this sensation of "I"-lessness. Bloody useless for survival and not so much use for procreation! But extremely satisfying nonetheless.


I very much disagree with this statement, if you are referring to what I think you are referring to: direct action in response to the environment unmediated by conscious thought. Note that, on average, your consiousness is a about 100 milliseconds "behind the times". Note furthermore that in survival (and hence procreation) critical situations a species cannot always afford to lose 100 milliseconds of response time, pre-conscious decision making (which is necessarily "I"-less) is crucial for the success of a species.


What becomes apparent is that we articulate needs objectively because that is what we have learned. We articulate the need as "I need..." But not all needs, not all desires can be met objectively. Simply articulating certain needs objectively can actually preclude their fulfilment, because their fulfilment requires a withdrawing of the objective perspective, not the seeking for some"thing" that will meet the need.

Nick

We only articulate needs objectively when we:
a) are in a position that we can afford to spend time articulating
(Fun(?) experiment: Try starving yourself (just remember to drink water). See how much thinking you will be able to do when your is crying out for nourishment)
b) there is planning required.

As far as I can tell, the concept "I" is nothing more than a side-effect of having brains geared for planning. And the "desire" to ponder the question "Who am I?" is merely an (occasionally dysfunctional) abstracting of the introspection needed for intersubjective coordination when implementing a plan.

[Darat]

You seem to me to be assuming that "we," or "I", is somehow innate. As I see it, materialism clearly points to the realization that selfhood is a process, that the "I" is a process. It is just an aspect of being, not something inviolable. Without thinking, there is no I present.

Nick


A process is innate and is just as real ;) as anything else, a tree is just the process of "being a tree".

[Nick227]

This remains to be seen. So far, yes, but ask me again in a billion years...
At most we can say that (having) a concept like 'objectivity' is not disastruously detrimental to our survival as a species.

Objectivity is highly essential if you ask me. There's a clear sense of "me." This is "me" and that over there is not me. It's clear. It's strong. OK, it's only being created by a handful of brain processes but it feels real as hell, and through this objective vision of self I can easily defend myself and get needs met. I can't imagine that much life could develop without a decent selfhood module in there.



I very much disagree with this statement, if you are referring to what I think you are referring to: direct action in response to the environment unmediated by conscious thought.

That's not what I'm referring to, actually. I'm referring to the passive "observation" (for want of a less dualistic term) of phenomena without thinking present.


As far as I can tell, the concept "I" is nothing more than a side-effect of having brains geared for planning. And the "desire" to ponder the question "Who am I?" is merely an (occasionally dysfunctional) abstracting of the introspection needed for intersubjective coordination when implementing a plan.

I would agree that one might consider subjectivity or introspection as rather more the results of pathological tendencies and less as real phenomena. I have some leanings to this thinking myself. However, I still experience a desire for self knowledge and for knowledge about the world.

Nick

[Nick227]

A process is innate and is just as real ;) as anything else, a tree is just the process of "being a tree".

For sure. But "I" is not even a phenomenal process. It's an inference created as a side-effect to thinking, an apparent centre suggested by peripheral activity.

When you make the statement on which I originally commented...

"We can't both be limited and then somehow not be limited."

...to me you appear to be envisioning "we" as something solid, rather than a mere side effect to thinking.

Nick

[Phaedrus74]

Objectivity is highly essential if you ask me. There's a clear sense of "me." This is "me" and that over there is not me. It's clear. It's strong. OK, it's only being created by a handful of brain processes but it feels real as hell, and through this objective vision of self I can easily defend myself and get needs met. I can't imagine that much life could develop without a decent selfhood module in there.


That something is inconceivable does not mean that it is impossible (Yes, I know a platitude). But considering the fact that the most successful species on this planet get by fine without so much as a brain does seem to point in the direction that a "selfhood" module is wholly superfluous.

The mistake of a lot of philosophers and scientists make is that they become way too infatuated with homo sapiens and it's mental capacities. Or for that matter the (highly erroneous) perception that there is perfection to be found in all this.

Natural selection favours slackers: Those that get the most done whilst expending the least amount of energy.


That's not what I'm referring to, actually. I'm referring to the passive "observation" (for want of a less dualistic term) of phenomena without thinking present.


Can you illustrate, the image that popped into my head was playing a computergame whilst in "the zone", meaning when I am not knowing what I am doing and merely doing it.


I would agree that one might consider subjectivity or introspection rather more as pathological tendencies and less as real phenomena. I have some leanings to this thinking myself. However, I still experience a desire for self knowledge and for knowledge about the world.

Nick

I actually don't regard them as pathological in general, if that were the case it would severly impact survivability (Paranoid delusions spring to mind). And I agree with you that being able to discern "self" from "other" is useful. On the other hand I fear that you are making way too much of these concepts, they are important, no doubt, but the earth-shattering gravity you seem to impart on them seems a bit over the top.

Jeroen.

[Darat]

For sure. But "I" is not even a phenomenal process.

...snip...


Yes it is.




It's an inference created as a side-effect to thinking, an apparent centre suggested by peripheral activity.



No it is something, you just described it as a something i.e. a process. That is what it is.

When you make the statement on which I originally commented...



...to me you appear to be envisioning "we" as something solid, rather than a mere side effect to thinking.

Nick

It is something "solid", it's in your definition a process. Remember how I like to ask "Where is my ran?" Just because I cannot put my finger on a "ran" does not mean I do not run, that running does not exist, that my ran does not exist.

[Nick227]

That something is inconceivable does not mean that it is impossible (Yes, I know a platitude). But considering the fact that the most successful species on this planet get by fine without so much as a brain does seem to point in the direction that a "selfhood" module is wholly superfluous.

How complex is this species?

The mistake of a lot of philosophers and scientists make is that they become way too infatuated with homo sapiens and it's mental capacities. Or for that matter the (highly erroneous) perception that there is perfection to be found in all this.

Natural selection favours slackers: Those that get the most done whilst expending the least amount of energy.

I would say that would depend if you consider genes to be the only replicators. I also appreciate your point. Natural selection doesn't really rate slacker human males, though. The alphas tend to pull more.



Can you illustrate, the image that popped into my head was playing a computergame whilst in "the zone", meaning when I am not knowing what I am doing and merely doing it.

Yes, you can lose awareness of self through being totally immersed in something. It can also go the other way and be completely passive. It's easier to be total than to be without thoughts for most though, I think.



I actually don't regard them as pathological in general, if that were the case it would severly impact survivability (Paranoid delusions spring to mind).

Well, psychologically, paranoia might be considered extreme introspectionism. In my experience, if you identify with and articulate enough internal states then the whole notion of subjectivity starts to dissipate. It feels healthy.

And I agree with you that being able to discern "self" from "other" is useful. On the other hand I fear that you are making way too much of these concepts, they are important, no doubt, but the earth-shattering gravity you seem to impart on them seems a bit over the top.

I guess that depends on how much you put on objectivity to get your needs met and how much that works.

Nick

[Nick227]

Yes it is.


No it is something, you just described it as a something i.e. a process. That is what it is.

Well, it's not the best way of describing it I could have come up with! I would rather say that it is an effect created by a process - an apparent centre suggested by coherent peripheral activity. Thus, the "I" requires thinking in order to apparently manifest.

It is something "solid", it's in your definition a process. Remember how I like to ask "Where is my ran?" Just because I cannot put my finger on a "ran" does not mean I do not run, that running does not exist, that my ran does not exist.

To me this is more just a word-play. We use past participles in articulating narratives to communicate actions that have already taken place. You could replace "ran" with pretty much any past participle. I don't see how it's so much relevant. "I" is an ongoing apparent centre suggested by thinking. Whilst thoughts are passing I'm here. No more thoughts, and "I"'s gone!

Nick

[Phaedrus74]

How complex is this species?


Not very, considering they're bacteria (OK I cheated, they are several species but you get my point).

But even the complex social interaction seen in ants, bees and termites doesn't seem to need much in terms of individual brain-power.


I would say that would depend if you consider genes to be the only replicators. I also appreciate your point. Natural selection doesn't really rate slacker human males, though. The alphas tend to pull more.


Strange, I thought beta's pulled more. :D

(You realize that in a serious discussion like this the occasional levity is mandatory, also the pun works better in Dutch...)


Yes, you can lose awareness of self through being totally immersed in something. It can also go the other way and be completely passive. It's easier to be total than to be without thoughts for most though, I think.


I do agree it is a nice sensation...


Well, psychologically, paranoia might be considered extreme introspectionism. In my experience, if you identify with and articulate enough internal states then the whole notion of subjectivity starts to dissipate. It feels healthy.


I think I agree.


I guess that depends on how much you put on objectivity to get your needs met and how much that works.

Nick

Yep, and to get back to the original question you posed: If too much is put on objectivity, then yes it is threatened by evolution and science.

A common theme in the responses to your initial post has been to downplay the importance of objectivity to more mundane levels.

Jeroen.

[Nick227]

Not very, considering they're bacteria (OK I cheated, they are several species but you get my point).

But even the complex social interaction seen in ants, bees and termites doesn't seem to need much in terms of individual brain-power.

True. Ants are more Buddhist. Dependant origination rules.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

Objectivity has clearly yielded a great deal on one level. And it is of course "reliable" in that reliability and objectivity are intertwined. However, to test, at least in a small way, the proposition that objectivity will fulfil our needs for understanding one might ask "Are you fulfilled? Has your need for understanding actually been fulfilled by science?" My guess is that for a lot of people it seems that it has opened doorways but has not yet yielded that which might satisfy this need for understanding.

Well, some people probably are fulfilled whereas others aren’t. People aren’t necessarily that good at pinpointing what they really want, notwithstanding basic urges like food, water, sex, shelter rest etc., thus much of such introspection is spent on trying to find out what they want. I’m not sure if generalizations are going to be that valid when speaking about fulfilling other than basic needs; the variety is too great.

Firstly, do we just need to do more and more science? Maybe if we just keep studying we will get to a place where the need is fulfilled. Or it is possible that objectivity will never fulfil the need?

Yes, of course. Human curiosity seems to be unstoppable in this respect.

Secondly, is it actually realistic to expect objectivity to be able to fulfil this need? In taking a materialist perspective what is evident to me is that the processes which make up a objective, whole human are many. As I mentioned before you need a lot of processes running to really crank up to a full, objective perspective. Yet need and desire seem more primitive in their origination and it is more that they only require objectivity for their articulation. For those needs and desires which are not satisfied through articulation, is it realistic to think that they will be satisfied objectively, or is it possible that their satisfaction only comes with allowing ourselves at least a temporary release from the constraits of this mindset? This seems to me more likely.

I would say that this, again, is settled by a case-by-case investigation. Generalization about what’s fulfilling and what’s not is probably not going to solve much.

I wouldn’t however be overly surprised if some kind of introspection might be sufficient for at least some people in momentarily stopping the urge to seek more, thus maybe revealing a sort of insight into unnecessary struggling. Such is the pace and stress of everyday life that simply taking a break and actually re-learning how it feels to be at peace could be helpful, just like kids with attention disorder are encouraged to identify the feeling of being focused.

I’m not so sure how much this kind of practise actually reveals about the world thou; it seems to reveal more about how we mange to create unnecessary fuss in our everyday lives, by watching how our thoughts and feelings carry a certain momentum even though the basis for them might have passed away some time ago (which could be regarded as an insight).

[Ichneumonwasp]

True. Ants are more Buddhist. Dependant origination rules.

Nick


Dang, that explains a lot. I always wondered why the path ants followed was eight-fold.

[Phaedrus74]

Dang, that explains a lot. I always wondered why the path ants followed was eight-fold.

And this makes red army ants what?

Angry Tibetan students?

:boxedin:

[Ichneumonwasp]

And this makes red army ants what?

Angry Tibetan students?

:boxedin:


Nah, man, Maoists. Buddhist Maoists. It's all so clear.

I'm still working on the carpenter ants, though. Buddhist Jesuses? Maybe anorectic Buddhist 70's pop stars?

[Mashuna]

Nah, man, Maoists. Buddhist Maoists. It's all so clear.

I'm still working on the carpenter ants, though. Buddhist Jesuses?

They're normal Buddhist ants, it's just that rainy days and Mondays always get them down.

[Ichneumonwasp]

They're normal Buddhist ants, it's just that rainy days and Mondays always get them down.

:)
Ahhhh, you got there first. I like yours much better.

[Phaedrus74]

They're normal Buddhist ants, it's just that rainy days and Mondays always get them down.

Mashuna FTW!!1!!!11 :D

[Skeptic Guy]

They're normal Buddhist ants, it's just that rainy days and Mondays always get them down.

You owe me for a new keyboard. I'm never going to get the coffee out of it.

[Mashuna]

Thank you. I'm always glad to ruin a keyboard.

[arthwollipot]

Leafcutter ants are Amish.

[PixyMisa]

So you are saying that the real world must be known by the senses and the brain then? There is essentially no possibility of noumena-phenomena. What you see is quite simply what there is.
No. Indeed, that bears no resemblence to what I said.

What I said was that if our senses were not accurate representations of the world, you would not be here with your silly speculations. We'd all be dead. Your argument is self-defeating.

[Mashuna]

No. Indeed, that bears no resemblence to what I said.

What I said was that if our senses were not accurate representations of the world, you would not be here with your silly speculations. We'd all be dead. Your argument is self-defeating.

Quite. That deep pit with spikes in it may not be a 100% accurate view of the underlying reality. There's every reason to believe it's pretty close.

[Nick227]

Quite. That deep pit with spikes in it may not be a 100% accurate view of the underlying reality. There's every reason to believe it's pretty close.

Care to list some of those "every reasons?"

As I see it, materialism dictates that reality is not a priori objective in the slightest. There is no actual subject anywhere. So much has to take place to construct the objective mindset. To be a functioning complex organism requires a lot of processes. I submit that it is actually far more realistic to consider that undoing some of this excess processing is more likely to reveal satisfactory results.

Nick

[gentlehorse]

The zazen master who acts as if the deep pit full of spikes does not exist is a hole-y man indeed.

[Nick227]

No. Indeed, that bears no resemblence to what I said.

What I said was that if our senses were not accurate representations of the world, you would not be here with your silly speculations. We'd all be dead. Your argument is self-defeating.

The senses allow an organism to survive and procreate. If they are ineffective at this then the chances are that the traits which underperform will be progressively written out of the genetic code, passed over for something better.

Objectivity is exceptionally good at protecting the organism. But objectivity requires a lot of excess processing. It is not enough to have representations of what is there. You also need to develop a clear sense of boundaries. And to rigidly enforce them through identifying self-not self. A chunk of this is done with feelings and sensations. But the more mental and thought-based aspects are undertaken by having still more processing going on. It's basically excess processing on top of what actually IS.

Nick

[Mashuna]

Care to list some of those "every reasons?"

As I see it, materialism dictates that reality is not a priori objective in the slightest. There is no actual subject anywhere. So much has to take place to construct the objective mindset. To be a functioning complex organism requires a lot of processes. I submit that it is actually far more realistic to consider that undoing some of this excess processing is more likely to reveal satisfactory results.

Nick

The zazen master who acts as if the deep pit full of spikes does not exist is a hole-y man indeed.

Pretty much what gentlehorse said. There's an obvious evolutionary benefit for having an accurate view of reality. Those who don't have an accurate view are the ones who don't breed, due to being impaled on spikes at the bottom of a pit.

[paximperium]

The senses allow an organism to survive and procreate. If they are ineffective at this then the chances are that the traits which underperform will be progressively written out of the genetic code, passed over for something better.

Objectivity is exceptionally good at protecting the organism. But objectivity requires a lot of excess processing. It is not enough to have representations of what is there. You also need to develop a clear sense of boundaries. And to rigidly enforce them through identifying self-not self. A chunk of this is done with feelings and sensations. But the more mental and thought-based aspects are undertaken by having still more processing going on. It's basically excess processing on top of what actually IS.

No. Objectivity is a threadbare skeleton "best" view of reality using our limited perceptions. Using this objective information and processing it using reason is what takes brain processing and brain power. This goes completely against emotion and feeling.

We tend to use objective information and make it "subjective" by using short cuts such as Heuristics to decrease the speed and energy used to process this information. This is based on so called feeling and "intuition".

[Nick227]

Pretty much what gentlehorse said. There's an obvious evolutionary benefit for having an accurate view of reality. Those who don't have an accurate view are the ones who don't breed, due to being impaled on spikes at the bottom of a pit.

You are not examining the actual mechanisms by which representations are created and interpreted. There is no subject a priori. Selfhood is created through mental processing. Objectivity is constructed through reinterpreting the selfless representations created by the senses to reflect self-not self. Thus reality is constantly being processed to provide objective representations.
As discussed, this process is inevitably evolutionarily favoured but it takes place in addition to the simple creation of representations. It is a further abstraction away from this.

Nick

[PixyMisa]

The senses allow an organism to survive and procreate. If they are ineffective at this then the chances are that the traits which underperform will be progressively written out of the genetic code, passed over for something better.
Precisely.

Objectivity is exceptionally good at protecting the organism. But objectivity requires a lot of excess processing.
Wrong!

Objectivity is the default. A single diode is objective. You need memory and internal logic and feedback loops before you can have any subjective processing.

It is not enough to have representations of what is there. You also need to develop a clear sense of boundaries. And to rigidly enforce them through identifying self-not self. A chunk of this is done with feelings and sensations. But the more mental and thought-based aspects are undertaken by having still more processing going on. It's basically excess processing on top of what actually IS.
You have that precisely backwards.

The complex processing here is all involved in creating the subjective self. The objective part is the easy one. Stimulus-response. That's all that's required. Evolution will weed out the inappropriate responses and leave ones that are objectively relevant.

And the self/not-self barrier is enforced by simple physics. If you poke a planarian with a pin, it responds. If you poke a second planarian with a pin, the first planarian does not respond, because it's not being poked.

[Nick227]

No. Objectivity is a threadbare skeleton "best" view of reality using our limited perceptions. Using this objective information and processing it using reason is what takes brain processing and brain power. This goes completely against emotion and feeling.

Objectivity only kicks in with certain brain functions - mirroring, body-map, and thinking among the more significant. Without the action of, for example, thinking, reality looks no different but is entirely different! There's no "one" in it. The "I" is simply not innate to being, as materialism confirms. It is just being constructed, and as it is so visual and other representions are then put into the objective perspective. Subjectivity doesn't come into the equation. It's irrelevant here. You have a baseline non-dual, selfless reality being constructed into objective reality through ancilliary processing. Simple as that if you ask me.

Nick

[Dancing David]

I am amazed to see that Nicck227's understanding of evolution is about as wrong as everything else...

[lupus_in_fabula]

Objectivity is the default. A single diode is objective. You need memory and internal logic and feedback loops before you can have any subjective processing.

I think Ramachandran, among others, speculated on this issue, from an evolutionary standpoint, and pretty much said what you said: That subjectivity is the late-comer; an addition to simply responding to external stimuli.

It makes sense to think that way: subjectivity being superfluous until basic survival needs is accounted for.

[Nick227]

Precisely.


Wrong!

Objectivity is the default. A single diode is objective. You need memory and internal logic and feedback loops before you can have any subjective processing.


You have that precisely backwards.

The complex processing here is all involved in creating the subjective self. The objective part is the easy one. Stimulus-response. That's all that's required. Evolution will weed out the inappropriate responses and leave ones that are objectively relevant.

And the self/not-self barrier is enforced by simple physics. If you poke a planarian with a pin, it responds. If you poke a second planarian with a pin, the first planarian does not respond, because it's not being poked.

I am not discussing objectivity as opposed to subjectivity, both are selfhood states. Thus you seem to me to be arguing against your own construction.

Conscious representations created by sensory systems are fundamentally selfless. This is basic materialism as I see it. The notion that they are occuring to someone is created through thinking, which to me in this context may be regarded as ancilliary processing.

That an organism has a somatosensory cortex helps cause it react when pushed with a pin. This reaction creates the behaviour of selfhood. It does not mean that selfhood is an a priori aspect of existence.

Nick

[Nick227]

I think Ramachandran, among others, speculated on this issue, from an evolutionary standpoint, and pretty much said what you said: That subjectivity is the late-comer; an addition to simply responding to external stimuli.

It makes sense to think that way: subjectivity being superfluous until basic survival needs is accounted for.

I agree. I'm not discussing objectivity in relation to subjectivity, which I have already posted my opinion on, as potentially to be considered a pathological state.

I'm saying that conscious representations are fundamentally selfless, not subjective, selfless.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

I'm not discussing objectivity in relation to subjectivity, which I have already posted my opinion on, as potentially to be considered a pathological state.

I'm saying that conscious representations are fundamentally selfless, not subjective, selfless.

How does objectivity differ form selflessness?

[Nick227]

How does objectivity differ form selflessness?

To me, to be objective about something you need a clear sense of "what you are" and that you are an independent system observing "something else."

Nick

[Dancing David]

"I'm not discussing objectivity in relation to subjectivity, which I have already posted my opinion on, as potentially to be considered a pathological state."

Wow am I glad I missed out on that, a snake oil salesman wrote that. I would consider ethics as a requirement for assesment of pathology.

[lupus_in_fabula]

To me, to be objective about something you need a clear sense of "what you are" and that you are an independent system observing "something else."

Sure, it’s possible to say that in order to be objective one must create a subject (a clear sense of boundaries). But when we generally say to someone to be ‘more objective’, it actually means being ‘less subjective’.

We seem to have a hardwired sense for a kind of rudimentary objectivity (like reflexively jumping to the side when a car drives too close to us). There’s no symbolic reasoning involved in this. Symbolic reasoning comes after the initial observation, and which tend to lead to further more systematic observations, thus requiring more and more resources for abstract reasoning; which also means more resources to that of creating distinctions, and where the arising of a subject is among the fist to appear.

[Nick227]

Sure, it’s possible to say that in order to be objective one must create a subject (a clear sense of boundaries). But when we generally say to someone to be ‘more objective’, it actually means being ‘less subjective’.

I agree.

We seem to have a hardwired sense for a kind of rudimentary objectivity (like reflexively jumping to the side when a car drives too close to us). There’s no symbolic reasoning involved in this. Symbolic reasoning comes after the initial observation, and which tend to lead to further more systematic observations, thus requiring more and more resources for abstract reasoning; which also means more resources to that of creating distinctions, and where the arising of a subject is among the fist to appear.

I mean, objectivity is for sure evident in defensive reactions mediated by the limbic system, no doubt about it. The sight of something resembling a snake spurs the individual into tangible existence, mobilising response possibilities. But as I see it this essentially reinforces my point. We have developed through the strict criteria of natural selection. We have learned to act as a focussed organism with a clear sense of personal boundary because this way is the most effective to stay alive. When thinking developed it seems to me inevitable that it could further reinforce this objective perspective, that objectivity would be pleasureable, rather than necessarily an effective tool for knowing deeper self or the universe.

That we can observe something relatively passively and without the need to act defensively, or perhaps even without envisioning selfhood, is quite an achievement. Our pontifications about the nature of the world can usually only take place when more basic needs have already been met, yet they rely on the same phenomenology that has been developed for us through natural selection, acting on different criteria.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

When thinking developed it seems to me inevitable that it could further reinforce this objective perspective, that objectivity would be pleasureable, rather than necessarily an effective tool for knowing deeper self or the universe.

I’m not sure what you mean with ”…for knowing deeper self or the universe.” It seems to be quite effective for the same reason it has kept us alive quite successfully: it’s plausible that how we perceive the universe is in fact rather accurate – at least it’s getting more accurate all the time.

I’m not sure how that can be a case of undermining.

[Nick227]

I’m not sure what you mean with ”…for knowing deeper self or the universe.” It seems to be quite effective for the same reason it has kept us alive quite successfully: it’s plausible that how we perceive the universe is in fact rather accurate – at least it’s getting more accurate all the time.

If it is accurate then the desire is satisfied. Agreed? But the desire does not seem to me to be satisfied. People still want knowledge. I think that it is thus valid to consider if there are endemic issues here with objectivity, rather than it merely being a question of getting there one day.

It seems to me that there are 2 areas of examination here. Firstly, there is objectivity derived from what might be considered the earlier evolutionary route - the midbrain mediating defensive reactions and acquisitional behaviour. Secondly, the role of thinking and language in creating selfhood as a linguistic and notional construct.

The second is to me clearly orientated along the same lines as the first - language is object-orientated and makes constant use of the basic objective proposition - subject-object. However, thinking and language clearly have the possibility to extend the scope of investigation far more widely than mere sex and survival. We can for example pontificate on all sorts of philosophies.

Yet, in pontificating and assessing the relative merits of various philosophies and scientific propositions there are certain things that need to be borne in mind...

(i) our brains are acutely biased through evolution towards only objective evaluative strategies. Evolution has made us feel good about objectivity but this does not mean that objectivity can necessarily satisfy all needs.

(ii) desires are inevitably understood as goals. But philosophical goals, for example, may not be achievable through examining the world from a goal-orientated perspective. There may be a confusion occuring in the brain because of the way it has learned to interpret and articulate desires. Mentally translating a desire into an object-orientated strategy for acquisition could thus proclude the fulfilment of the desire in some cases.

(iii) thoughtless awareness experientially teaches the brain that (ii) above is likely so. Some desires may be fulfilled through object-orientated transactions. Others require a dropping of the whole subject-object viewpoint.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

If it is accurate then the desire is satisfied. Agreed? But the desire does not seem to me to be satisfied. People still want knowledge. I think that it is thus valid to consider if there are endemic issues here with objectivity, rather than it merely being a question of getting there one day.

The desire might not be satisfied ever. Precisely like a brand new Porsche might be seen as total fulfillment when you don’t have a car at all; even the first couple of days or weeks having the Porsche might constitute as such fulfillment. But when it is ten years old and rusting in the garage you might already have started to gaze at something newer and better (perhaps a Lamborghini); something that: “surely would keep you satisfied if you only could get it.” This might however be an infinite quest which always seems to betray some of us as time passes.

It is here where the variety of people’s psyche seems to play a crucial role in regards to “fulfillment”. For some the solution is trying to rid oneself from desire altogether (i.e. attachment leads to suffering). For others it is the quest that’s ultimately the satisfying element, thus seeking new adventures and goals might in and of itself be a kind of fulfilment in terms of finding new meanings all the time.

The building of the LHC seems to have evoked interesting reaction among a few physicists. Some of them saying that they wish it didn’t confirm the Higg’s boson, so that they could start working on totally new avenues (if the standard model would somehow turn out to be unsatisfactory). For them, that would be great, for others, not so much.


It seems to me that there are 2 areas of examination here. Firstly, there is objectivity derived from what might be considered the earlier evolutionary route - the midbrain mediating defensive reactions and acquisitional behaviour. Secondly, the role of thinking and language in creating selfhood as a linguistic and notional construct.

The second is to me clearly orientated along the same lines as the first - language is object-orientated and makes constant use of the basic objective proposition - subject-object. However, thinking and language clearly have the possibility to extend the scope of investigation far more widely than mere sex and survival. We can for example pontificate on all sorts of philosophies.

Yes, seems like a good way to put it.

Language and abstract reasoning can both solve some problems and create new ones – like going nuts when contemplating solipsism. :D …Probably because the same underlying mechanism for feelings and sensations play a role in thinking as they do with basic survival urges. Thus people who loose much of their abilities to sense emotions find it hard to behave rationally, which also is the case when emotions flood the thinking mechanism.

Being hardwired through natural selection – constantly looking out for something as a natural condition – might indeed make it almost impossible to be satisfied when those mechanisms also regulate higher brain functions (at least to a degree, if not fully).

Yet, in pontificating and assessing the relative merits of various philosophies and scientific propositions there are certain things that need to be borne in mind...

(i) our brains are acutely biased through evolution towards only objective evaluative strategies. Evolution has made us feel good about objectivity but this does not mean that objectivity can necessarily satisfy all needs.

(ii) desires are inevitably understood as goals. But philosophical goals, for example, may not be achievable through examining the world from a goal-orientated perspective. There may be a confusion occuring in the brain because of the way it has learned to interpret and articulate desires. Mentally translating a desire into an object-orientated strategy for acquisition could thus proclude the fulfilment of the desire in some cases.

(iii) thoughtless awareness experientially teaches the brain that (ii) above is likely so. Some desires may be fulfilled through object-orientated transactions. Others require a dropping of the whole subject-object viewpoint.

Yes, seems like it’s more a question of unsound expectations in regards to objectivity that undermining them. For sure, understanding the mechanism for feeling hungry does not directly satisfy me, only food does, momentarily. It would be silly to expect objectivity to fill my stomach in this regard.

Nevertheless, at least in theory, it could be possible to manipulate such mechanism, thus creating a situation where you never ‘feel’ hungry; you would only infer that you should be hungry. We don’t know how the situation is with other feelings of desire or urge. Could we perhaps just tweak the brain into only registering fulfillment signals? I don’t know. But if we adhere to physical explanations, then it seems that feelings of fulfillment are also physical, thus at least in theory subject to direct manipulation. This would of course be done trough objective investigation, albeit with some help via subjective guidance. I however doubt we will go down that route, at least in the immediate future, or even if we should.

It seems that some think dropping the subject-object viewpoint is a universal solution, I however doubt it. Precisely in the same way as I doubt objective knowledge would make my desire for food vanish. If your expectations are to high, disappointment is waiting around the corner.

[Nick227]

Thus people who loose much of their abilities to sense emotions find it hard to behave rationally, which also is the case when emotions flood the thinking mechanism.

If I recall it was found that emotions are needed for decision-making. The rational mind is not much good at making decisions, presumably because there is no actual purpose for life and thus little for it to go on! With emotions, either experienced directly or influencing decision-making unconsciously, we can choose. Feelings give us meaning. Feelings grow us, like water grows a flower.


Yes, seems like it’s more a question of unsound expectations in regards to objectivity that undermining them. For sure, understanding the mechanism for feeling hungry does not directly satisfy me, only food does, momentarily. It would be silly to expect objectivity to fill my stomach in this regard.

Objectivity will help you identify food though, and help make sure you don't become food yourself for another organism whilst doing so.

It seems that some think dropping the subject-object viewpoint is a universal solution, I however doubt it. Precisely in the same way as I doubt objective knowledge would make my desire for food vanish. If your expectations are to high, disappointment is waiting around the corner.

There is still a force unaccounted for - identification. Feelings do not happen to anyone. Thoughts are not thought by anyone. It only appears so when identification takes place.

Nick

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems to me indisputable that science is a useful thing for changing the shape of our world, making life easier and creating exciting TV. But can it actually tell us anything about the nature of reality? I would consider both materialism and evolution theory as pointing toward science being of limited value.

Considering materialism, it seems to me inevitable that if materialism is true then selfhood is simply a process. If selfhood is merely a process then there is no actual subject (as in subject-object) and so no actual objectivity. Objectivity collapses into simply a behaviour, and not something which can be used to make meaningful statements about how reality is. This has to seriously undermine the value of science.

Considering evolution, if evolution theory is correct, then human phenomenology developed through natural selection. This means that the world appears the way it does because this way helps the organism survive and procreate. As tendencies towards philosophy or pontificating about the nature of reality are unlikely to be evolutionarily favoured, I think it would be hard to state that this "eat and ****" world that appears to us is likely to reveal what it actually is.

Thus I think it is fair to say that if materialism and evolution theory are true then the value of science must be undermined.

NickAre you looking for some nebulous mystical ecstasy here? A better longer life isn't good enough for you? I'll take chocolate and sex over your nebulous and mystical any day.

[QED]

Am I the only one who doesn't quite get what "objectivity" we are talking about? For me, objectivity is being able to make an observation and everyone else being able to validate the observation. What's evolution got to do with it? Our ability to make observations has evolved, aye, but given that we don't all live in a computer simulation of some advanced alien civilisation or that everything I experience is a fabrication of my mind (solipsism anyone?), I don't quite see the point. ._.

If I recall it was found that emotions are needed for decision-making. The rational mind is not much good at making decisions, presumably because there is no actual purpose for life and thus little for it to go on! With emotions, either experienced directly or influencing decision-making unconsciously, we can choose. Feelings give us meaning. Feelings grow us, like water grows a flower.They aren't needed per se. They're just helpful when you don't want to be a sociopath. People who lost their ability to feel emotions can still make decisions, but it's hard for them in a society were emotions are a prerequisite.

[Dancing David]

Isee Nick227 still ascribes magic meaning to the word subjective and objective, rather typical neo Freudian twaddle.

[Nick227]

Am I the only one who doesn't quite get what "objectivity" we are talking about? For me, objectivity is being able to make an observation and everyone else being able to validate the observation. What's evolution got to do with it? Our ability to make observations has evolved, aye, but given that we don't all live in a computer simulation of some advanced alien civilisation or that everything I experience is a fabrication of my mind (solipsism anyone?), I don't quite see the point. ._.

Well, I assume you haven't read the thread or otherwise have not understood what it's on about, so we could go to basics....Give me hard, objective evidence for the proposition "I."

"I" exists only at the level of the functioning organism embedded in it's environment. It is the result of thinking processes which tend to create the sense of there being some centre to which they constantly refer. When you examine phenomena from a reductionist perspective, immediately objectivity is under some degree of threat, because objectivity requires there is a clear sense of borders in what is essentially a monist universe. This sense of boundary is created by neurological processes. It is not existing aside of this.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

Give me hard, objective evidence for the proposition "I."

In a sense you have already provided some evidence for it in the following quote of yours:

"I" exists only at the level of the functioning organism embedded in it's environment. It is the result of thinking processes which tend to create the sense of there being some centre to which they constantly refer. When you examine phenomena from a reductionist perspective, immediately objectivity is under some degree of threat, because objectivity requires there is a clear sense of borders in what is essentially a monist universe. This sense of boundary is created by neurological processes. It is not existing aside of this.

That is: it is probably found in distinguishable neurological processes in a given environment.

When we reduce the perspective enough, we’re ultimately left with simply being. But that seems to me to be trivially true. I’m not sure how much knowledge can be derived from that; knowledge seems to require a perspective; and a perspective requires at least some kind of distinction.

What you appear to be implying is that when “a system” manages to rid “itself” from subject-object distinction, “its” desires could be fulfilled. But there is no fulfilment there, there is only the lack of desire, using the term fulfilment is meaningless in such a context.

Likewise: Objectivity only exists in a setting where there are distinctions to be made, thus the method of objective observation should be valued accordingly

[Dancing David]

"It is the result of thinking processes which tend to create the sense of there being some centre to which they constantly refer. When you examine phenomena from a reductionist perspective, immediately objectivity is under some degree of threat, because objectivity requires there is a clear sense of borders in what is essentially a monist universe."

I see Nick227 is still just asserting that a certain POV is the truth and that others are false.

You do not need to have seperate objects for objectivity to exist. Objectivity is a set of statements that apply to the behavior of reality in the abcense of a single viewer, they are events that happen in the set of reality that is not particular to the individual.

So obviously we can't know if medication controls high blood pressure because the blood pressure is part of a monist organism in a monist enviroment.

[Nick227]

In a sense you have already provided some evidence for it in the following quote of yours:



That is: it is probably found in distinguishable neurological processes in a given environment.

I would more say that distinguishable neurological processes serve to create the sense of "I." It's not that there is an "I" process, I think.

When we reduce the perspective enough, we’re ultimately left with simply being. But that seems to me to be trivially true. I’m not sure how much knowledge can be derived from that; knowledge seems to require a perspective; and a perspective requires at least some kind of distinction.

What you appear to be implying is that when “a system” manages to rid “itself” from subject-object distinction, “its” desires could be fulfilled. But there is no fulfilment there, there is only the lack of desire, using the term fulfilment is meaningless in such a context.

Likewise: Objectivity only exists in a setting where there are distinctions to be made, thus the method of objective observation should be valued accordingly

I would rather say that there is a process which causes the organism to act as though there is an "I" and that this process might be termed "identification." Thinking only leads to action when this process is present. This process appears to be mediated unconsciously and thus it usually seems axiomatic that there exists an "I" that is "having the thoughts."

Thus it is not quite that "“a system” manages to rid “itself” from subject-object distinction", but more that identification will continue until that which drives identification in each specific situation is made conscious. As we become more fully aware of what drives us to choose certain thoughts to act upon, so the sense of "I" will progressively diminish and with it the notion of free will.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

I would more say that distinguishable neurological processes serve to create the sense of "I." It's not that there is an "I" process, I think.

I would rather say that there is a process which causes the organism to act as though there is an "I" and that this process might be termed "identification.” Thinking only leads to action when this process is present.


And so we return to the pragmatic question: what’s the difference between the “sense of I” and there being an “I process” (besides it resembling a kind of word play)? Sure, there is identification too, but ultimately thoughts are simply happening. Some we act upon, for most we do not.

This process appears to be mediated unconsciously and thus it usually seems axiomatic that there exists an "I" that is "having the thoughts."

This has been trivially true for a long time. There’s no “I” when downscaling to a sufficiently detailed level. It’s not exactly earth shattering news; it’s simply a matter of following an analytic path where it leads.

Thus it is not quite that "“a system” manages to rid “itself” from subject-object distinction", but more that identification will continue until that which drives identification in each specific situation is made conscious.

Ok, Thanks for the clarification. So, when identification is made conscious… what then? What knowledge have we learned about the world or ourselves? Why not jump the extra steps and simply realize that identification is simply a process like any other?

As we become more fully aware of what drives us to choose certain thoughts to act upon, so the sense of "I" will progressively diminish and with it the notion of free will.

I would say that ultimate free will is simply a dead end to begin with.

There’s an interesting take on free will from Rodolfo Llinás here (http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-science-studio/enter-the-i-of-the-vortex). If you’re interested you can download the transcript and read it. It’s very interesting. Here’s a snip:
…So I said, oh my god, I can’t tell the difference between the activity from the outside and what I consider to be a voluntary movement. If I know that it is going to happen, then I think I did it, because I now understand this free will stuff and this volition stuff. Volition is what’s happening somewhere else in the brain, I know about and therefore I decide that I did it. It happens in science as well. You actually take possession of something that doesn’t belong to you…

[Nick227]

And so we return to the pragmatic question: what’s the difference between the “sense of I” and there being an “I process” (besides it resembling a kind of word play)? Sure, there is identification too, but ultimately thoughts are simply happening. Some we act upon, for most we do not.

The difference to me is in how those thoughts flesh out. To consider that there exists an "I process" to me gives an impression that can lead to suspect considerations. To consider that there is a process that creates coherent peripheral activity, which leads to the sense of there being an "I" as some kind of centre of this activity - to me this is more accurate. For sure it's at least partly a personal thing.


This has been trivially true for a long time. There’s no “I” when downscaling to a sufficiently detailed level. It’s not exactly earth shattering news; it’s simply a matter of following an analytic path where it leads.

True.



Ok, Thanks for the clarification. So, when identification is made conscious… what then? What knowledge have we learned about the world or ourselves? Why not jump the extra steps and simply realize that identification is simply a process like any other?

I would say that ultimate free will is simply a dead end to begin with.

Yes, identification is made conscious, awareness of mental activity increases, and choices appear where previously only automatic behaviour existed.

Identification is a process, as I mentioned, but for me there are further issues here regarding free will. In considering that free will is illusory, one still has to accept the apparent experiential reality that it is not. The notion is counter-intuitive because it does not seem that way.

Thus, one needs to consider what is the effect of believing free will to be illusory? Does this affect one's decision-making? Does one start to disregard "I?" If one does then I think this is not so good. (Perhaps one might claim that all "I"'s would believe so!) Identification creates the sense of "I", and this "I" is used to frame and articulate desires and needs. Without its "I," or living in denial of its "I" through belief, the organism may not be able to sufficiently participate in identification to the point where it can develop the awareness to genuinely overcome it. To the thinking mind such a notion might appear to be one big non sequituur, but experientially I believe it is seen to be valid. One must participate fully in identification, with all its ecstasy and heartbreak, to have much chance of overcoming it.

Nick

[Nick227]

…So I said, oh my god, I can’t tell the difference between the activity from the outside and what I consider to be a voluntary movement. If I know that it is going to happen, then I think I did it, because I now understand this free will stuff and this volition stuff. Volition is what’s happening somewhere else in the brain, I know about and therefore I decide that I did it. It happens in science as well. You actually take possession of something that doesn’t belong to you…


Well, you are not taking possession of anything. The act of identification (done by no one) creates the sensation of there being an "I." These writers seem to me to be trying to track back from the false assumption, a la Descartes. No one is "understanding this free will stuff", it's just that thoughts arise, identification takes place, and it appears as though there is someone understanding.

I'm not suggesting one should write like there's no ego, but when dealing with this subject matter I think it's good to get clearer here.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, you are not taking possession of anything. The act of identification (done by no one) creates the sensation of there being an "I." These writers seem to me to be trying to track back from the false assumption, a la Descartes. No one is "understanding this free will stuff", it's just that thoughts arise, identification takes place, and it appears as though there is someone understanding.

I'm not suggesting one should write like there's no ego, but when dealing with this subject matter I think it's good to get clearer here.

Nick... I think the whole ”you are not taking possession,” ”there’s no I,” and comments alike are quote unnecessary when it’s clear that no one is adhering to dualism. In fact, it’s getting rather tedious and more often halts communication rather than elevates it. Unless one is willing to at least try to read between the lines and put aside the inherent dualistic nature of langue, without stumbling at the first possible hurdle, nothing meaningful is achieved.

About the short quote I provided: First, it is from a transcript, thus it’s from an interview, not an analytical dissertation about free will and selfhood. Second, he was talking about his own experience – how he felt, from a first-person point of view – while trying out a pretty interesting testing procedure. Third, the snip I provided is only a kind of introduction to the text; to get the complete picture at least read pages 8-11. Fourth, it’s pretty clear that Llinás is not taking a dualist stand when reading the whole text (in fact, the mentioning of Descartes’ notion led him to discuss free will in the first place [page 8]). The reason I introduced the link was because I though you would be interested in Llinás’ perspective.

This is also exactly why I think having an automatic “duality-radar” set to maximum is rather mind-numbing in the wrong context. You said something quite well yourself in a previous post: “…identification is made conscious, awareness of mental activity increases, and choices appear where previously only automatic behaviour existed.” That would be a good thing to be aware of if you decide to read the transcript.

[Nick227]

Nick... I think the whole ”you are not taking possession,” ”there’s no I,” and comments alike are quote unnecessary when it’s clear that no one is adhering to dualism. In fact, it’s getting rather tedious and more often halts communication rather than elevates it. Unless one is willing to at least try to read between the lines and put aside the inherent dualistic nature of langue, without stumbling at the first possible hurdle, nothing meaningful is achieved.

About the short quote I provided: First, it is from a transcript, thus it’s from an interview, not an analytical dissertation about free will and selfhood. Second, he was talking about his own experience – how he felt, from a first-person point of view – while trying out a pretty interesting testing procedure. Third, the snip I provided is only a kind of introduction to the text; to get the complete picture at least read pages 8-11. Fourth, it’s pretty clear that Llinás is not taking a dualist stand when reading the whole text (in fact, the mentioning of Descartes’ notion led him to discuss free will in the first place [page 8]). The reason I introduced the link was because I though you would be interested in Llinás’ perspective.

This is also exactly why I think having an automatic “duality-radar” set to maximum is rather mind-numbing in the wrong context. You said something quite well yourself in a previous post: “…identification is made conscious, awareness of mental activity increases, and choices appear where previously only automatic behaviour existed.” That would be a good thing to be aware of if you decide to read the transcript.

I did find the quote somewhat confused at the time. Perhaps I got the wrong impression. I did mention that I appreciate the issues with language when entering into this area. I did not read the link further but will do so. Thanks for posting it.

I have the duality radar but I do also feel that the free will discussion is not really about duality. Operating from the "I" perspective is to me inevitably dualistic. So I figure this needs to be accepted and the "next best" use of language followed.

Nick

[Nick227]

I've been away from the pc for a few days but I listened to a chunk of the lecture. Interesting, and some other interesting looking stuff there too. Thanks for the link. I don't see it, however, that Llinas is saying anything too different from what Ben Libet said some decades ago, when he did his thing with readiness potentials.

As I see it, free will exists at the level of the functioning organism, just as "I" exists at the same level. One might say that, functionally, a thinking organism needs "I" to partially reconcile the dualistic sensation inherent in thinking - that of being some thing having thoughts. Without the "I", all thinking would be third person and I imagine psychosis could be one result of this. So, identification is necessary. Yet identification would seem to potentially be overcome by examining thoroughly its activity, by constantly checking the thoughts we identify with traces of a hidden investment.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

Isee Nick227 still ascribes magic meaning to the word subjective and objective, rather typical neo Freudian twaddle.

Yep.

I gave up talking to Nick227, because all of his posts follow the same format and have basically the same content:

1) Quote a post, so that the reader thinks Nick actually read their post and will be responding to the information conveyed within.

2) Write a single sentence referencing that quoted post, to draw the reader in further.

3) Launch on a tangent, relying on fallacy after fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of the computational model of consciousness, that attempts to show the absurdity of materialism by "following it to it's logical conclusion."

I dare say Nick227 is the next generation of the "Kleinman" chatbot.

[rocketdodger]

Well, I assume you haven't read the thread or otherwise have not understood what it's on about, so we could go to basics....Give me hard, objective evidence for the proposition "I."

And I know you haven't read any of the threads on this subject, even the ones you pretend to participate in, because I (and others) have given you that evidence over and over and over.

In the context of materialism, Given a system S capable of referencing itself, "I" or "self" is the representation of S within S. Or to be less formal, "I" or "self" is a self-referential system's representation of itself.

I know you will utterly ignore that, Nick, but hopefully a few of the people you are trying to fool won't.

[Dancing David]

Yep.

I gave up talking to Nick227, because all of his posts follow the same format and have basically the same content:

1) Quote a post, so that the reader thinks Nick actually read their post and will be responding to the information conveyed within.

2) Write a single sentence referencing that quoted post, to draw the reader in further.

3) Launch on a tangent, relying on fallacy after fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of the computational model of consciousness, that attempts to show the absurdity of materialism by "following it to it's logical conclusion."

I dare say Nick227 is the next generation of the "Kleinman" chatbot.

The life span of monitors has increased since I put Nick227 on IGNORE, no more headbang marks and bruises.

[Nick227]

And I know you haven't read any of the threads on this subject, even the ones you pretend to participate in, because I (and others) have given you that evidence over and over and over.

In the context of materialism, Given a system S capable of referencing itself, "I" or "self" is the representation of S within S. Or to be less formal, "I" or "self" is a self-referential system's representation of itself.

I know you will utterly ignore that, Nick, but hopefully a few of the people you are trying to fool won't.

What exactly is defining the system as "itself?" Itself? Identity is a self-referencing evolutionarily-derived social convenience here. This aside, you are not providing evidence for "I," merely offering a definition. I could define the jolly green giant, this does not constitute evidence for its existence.

What I am pointing out is that objectivity is not as hard as it might seem at first examination. The borders between self and not self are not as straightforward as they might appear because...

a) phenomenology is created to reinforce objectivity (objectivity is evolutionarily favoured)

b) our sense of "I" is simply an artifact of thinking.

In truth, it is actually very hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, for the simply reason that objectivity, being so evolutionarily favoured, is itself simply not objective!

Science is simply an evolutionarily favoured behaviour.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

What exactly is defining the system as "itself?" Itself? Identity is a self-referencing evolutionarily-derived social convenience here. This aside, you are not providing evidence for "I," merely offering a definition. I could define the jolly green giant, this does not constitute evidence for its existence.

It is assumed that the organism is capable of observing itself to at least a rudimentary degree. Systems like us do this all the time, abundantly. Rudimentary forms can be identified as a closed sensor-motor-sensor feedback loops (like when robots progress from simply re-acting to pro-acting; i.e., learning). Complex systems, like the human, are also capable of metarepresentation and metacognition; we don’t need to prove that the system can define itself as itself; we need to accurately describe the actual mechanisms behind it.

Your position is rather silly because what you ask for is, using your standard, unachievable. You could do the same with a banana: i.e., “give me evidence for the existence of a banana!” And then reject anything by saying: “that’s just carbon molecule-bonds, atoms or energy in different forms.” What is lacking is not so much evidence, but an agreeable level for defining something as existing (anything).

So yes, a definition is sufficient evidence when the organism is capable of defining itself as itself, especially when other organisms also agree that what is referred to, is the same organism which is doing the referring. The very act of defining would be sufficient evidence in such a case.

[lupus_in_fabula]

What I am pointing out is that objectivity is not as hard as it might seem at first examination. The borders between self and not self are not as straightforward as they might appear because...

a) phenomenology is created to reinforce objectivity (objectivity is evolutionarily favoured)

b) our sense of "I" is simply an artifact of thinking.


How hard do you think objectivity is portrayed to be, so that you can confidently say that it’s much softer than that? The only reference point you give is… “at first examination”.

In truth, it is actually very hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, for the simply reason that objectivity, being so evolutionarily favoured, is itself simply not objective!

If it’s not objective, then it’s simply meaningless to say that it’s hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, it’s impossible. Nevertheless, we try to reach as close to the objective ideal as possible.

Science is simply an evolutionarily favoured behaviour.

I’m afraid your description is so vague that it’s indistinguishable from a tautology.

[Dancing David]

Nick227 appears to understand about as little of natural selection as they do the biology of organic systems.

[Nick227]

It is assumed that the organism is capable of observing itself to at least a rudimentary degree. Systems like us do this all the time, abundantly. Rudimentary forms can be identified as a closed sensor-motor-sensor feedback loops (like when robots progress from simply re-acting to pro-acting; i.e., learning). Complex systems, like the human, are also capable of metarepresentation and metacognition; we don’t need to prove that the system can define itself as itself; we need to accurately describe the actual mechanisms behind it.

Your position is rather silly because what you ask for is, using your standard, unachievable. You could do the same with a banana: i.e., “give me evidence for the existence of a banana!” And then reject anything by saying: “that’s just carbon molecule-bonds, atoms or energy in different forms.” What is lacking is not so much evidence, but an agreeable level for defining something as existing (anything).

So yes, a definition is sufficient evidence when the organism is capable of defining itself as itself, especially when other organisms also agree that what is referred to, is the same organism which is doing the referring. The very act of defining would be sufficient evidence in such a case.

You're going off at tangents. I originally asked, if I recall, for hard objective evidence for "I." A banana is, I submit, not comparable.

About your first paragraph, what I was previously referring to was more to do with borders. What defines self as self, as in, who sets the borders?

Nick

[Nick227]

How hard do you think objectivity is portrayed to be, so that you can confidently say that it’s much softer than that? The only reference point you give is… “at first examination”.

Well, I appreciate that for the more scientific mindset such statements are hardly ideal!

But what I'm basically saying is that objectivity is a behaviour. To be objective is a behaviour which creates a feeling of security and satisfaction. These feelings are a result of our evolutionary history because being able to create an object-centred phenomenology assisted organisms survive and reproduce.

In attempting to fulfil our desire to understand the universe, being objective feels good, but this in no way demonstrates that it actually gets anyone towards this goal. It just feels good because objectivity makes us feel reassured.

It seems to me more practical to ask if the desire is sated through all this objective examination, and if it is not then investigate what is going on more deeply.

If it’s not objective, then it’s simply meaningless to say that it’s hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, it’s impossible. Nevertheless, we try to reach as close to the objective ideal as possible.

Yes, and we have repeatedly failed throughout history. We do not understand the universe. We do not know reality beyond the representations that appear. This, I submit, is because one is simply following a behaviour which feels good rather than truly seeking the answers.

It strikes me that a more personal philosophical and self-examinatory approach is likely to yeild better results, though by their nature they may be hard to transmit to others!

Nick

[rocketdodger]

What exactly is defining the system as "itself?" Itself? Identity is a self-referencing evolutionarily-derived social convenience here. This aside, you are not providing evidence for "I," merely offering a definition. I could define the jolly green giant, this does not constitute evidence for its existence.

What I am pointing out is that objectivity is not as hard as it might seem at first examination. The borders between self and not self are not as straightforward as they might appear because...

a) phenomenology is created to reinforce objectivity (objectivity is evolutionarily favoured)

b) our sense of "I" is simply an artifact of thinking.

In truth, it is actually very hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, for the simply reason that objectivity, being so evolutionarily favoured, is itself simply not objective!

Science is simply an evolutionarily favoured behaviour.

Nick

1) You clearly lack any education, of any type, in either computer or cognitive science.

2) You are clearly nothing more than a confused idealist that can't come to grips with your own notions, whatever the heck they are.

3) Your response above follows perfectly the 3-point template I described earlier. Notice how you

a) Give a one sentence response to my earlier post.
b) Reference my earlier post once more in the next sentence.
c) Spend the rest of your response blabbing on about something that has nothing to do with my earlier post.

In truth, it is actually very hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, for the simply reason that objectivity, being so evolutionarily favoured, is itself simply not objective!

4) ????

This sentence solidifies the conclusion many of us have reached: that you aren't worth arguing with because you are clearly insane.

[rocketdodger]

It strikes me that a more personal philosophical and self-examinatory approach is likely to yeild better results, though by their nature they may be hard to transmit to others!


Aaaahhh, at last.

After months of having to wade through your wordy quasi-pretend-materialist garbage posts, Nick, you finally expose your true colors.

Was there any doubt, really? I have known all along -- you never fooled me. You don't make a very good fake-materialist, if for no reason other than the fact that your posts on the subject are literally incomprehensible.

[rocketdodger]

What defines self as self, as in, who sets the borders?

How about "mathematics and the laws of physics?"

You think you are backing materialists into a corner, but you are not -- materialism has no corners to get backed into.

[Nick227]

1) You clearly lack any education, of any type, in either computer or cognitive science.

2) You are clearly nothing more than a confused idealist that can't come to grips with your own notions, whatever the heck they are.

3) Your response above follows perfectly the 3-point template I described earlier. Notice how you

a) Give a one sentence response to my earlier post.
b) Reference my earlier post once more in the next sentence.
c) Spend the rest of your response blabbing on about something that has nothing to do with my earlier post.

4) ????

This sentence solidifies the conclusion many of us have reached: that you aren't worth arguing with because you are clearly insane.

None of which, as usual, actually deals with the issue you attempted to deal with a few posts back. Where is your hard, objective evidence for "I?" You don't have any because there isn't any, as anyone with awareness or background in this area knows full well. So...why bother to try and answer the question in the first place? And if you are going to try and tackle it, well fair enough, but then why simply give an attempted definition of acutely questionable relevance?

Nick

[Nick227]

How about "mathematics and the laws of physics?"

You think you are backing materialists into a corner, but you are not -- materialism has no corners to get backed into.

I am more trying to find a real materialist here on this list. It seems to me to be populated rather by those whom Dan Dennett terms "cartesian materialists."

Materialists get into the teletransporter, RD. You won't.

Materialists do not believe in persisting selfhood, RD. You apparently do.

I am not trying to back you into a corner. I'm more trying to "out" you as the entrenched dualist you are, to use a metaphor of questionable taste.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

None of which, as usual, actually deals with the issue you attempted to deal with a few posts back. Where is your hard, objective evidence for "I?" You don't have any because there isn't any, as anyone with awareness or background in this area knows full well. So...why bother to try and answer the question in the first place? And if you are going to try and tackle it, well fair enough, but then why simply give an attempted definition of acutely questionable relevance?

Nick

Do you claim that for every system S in the universe, S cannot reference S?

[rocketdodger]

I am more trying to find a real materialist here on this list. It seems to me to be populated rather by those whom Dan Dennett terms "cartesian materialists."

Yes it is very easy to find a name to call people and then write off any evidence to the contrary as misunderstanding on their part. So I am a cartesian materialist, just because you say I am. Never mind that none of the criteria Dennett might use apply to me in reality.

Materialists get into the teletransporter, RD. You won't.

And I explained why. And I offered improved versions of the teletransporter that I would use. And you ignored literally every single one of those posts in that discussion. Care to revive the discussion? I don't see why you would, since you will just ignore my reasoning like usual.

Materialists do not believe in persisting selfhood, RD. You apparently do.

If you think I do, then you, apparently, don't understand anything the materialists on this forum have argued with each other for the last 3 years.

I am not trying to back you into a corner. I'm more trying to "out" you as the entrenched dualist you are, to use a metaphor of questionable taste.

"I'm made of gum your made of glue everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you nyanyananyanya."

Honestly Nick, you are so transparent at this point. I can offer simple, logical, concise, and understandable reasons for everything I believe. Can you do the same? Do you think you can catch me slipping up? Go for it.

To start, how about responding to the answer to your question regarding what defines self?

[Nick227]

Do you claim that for every system S in the universe, S cannot reference S?

No. But, as previously pointed out, this is not objective evidence for the existence of "I." To my mind, there are also issues here with whether a phenomenal representation of a system can be truly claimed to be "itself," given that it is only processes apparently taking place within that system that deem it so. This may or may not be a moot point. I'm not sure.

Nick

[Nick227]

And I explained why. And I offered improved versions of the teletransporter that I would use. And you ignored literally every single one of those posts in that discussion. Care to revive the discussion? I don't see why you would, since you will just ignore my reasoning like usual.

Revive away! I am more than happy to debate Blackmore's thought experiment. Let's start with her original wording...

Imagine a box with a big button which, when you press it, can transport you anywhere you want to go – and back again. When it does so it reads all the information from every cell in your body, destroying them in the process and rebuilding them exactly the same at the destination.

Would you go? Do not quibble over safety or any other details. This is, after all, a thought experiment, so we are not constrained by reality. The box is 100% safe and reliable. If you won’t go in, this has to be for some other reason than that it might go wrong.

Would you go? Answer Yes or No

Will you travel?

Nick

[rocketdodger]

No.

Then you agree that, according to the definition of "I" that was given, "I" exists.

There is a definition. There is at least one entity that fits that definition. Anything else is just you generating strawmen.

[rocketdodger]

Will you travel?


It entirely depends on the mechanism of the machine.

If the continuity of information flowing through my neurons can be assured down to a certain level, then yes.

If not, then no.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, I appreciate that for the more scientific mindset such statements are hardly ideal!

No it isn’t, and that’s probably why you’re left with obscurity.

But what I'm basically saying is that objectivity is a behaviour. To be objective is a behaviour which creates a feeling of security and satisfaction. These feelings are a result of our evolutionary history because being able to create an object-centred phenomenology assisted organisms survive and reproduce.

Can we do anything without it being a behaviour? Simply being objective isn’t going to do that much in terms of security and satisfaction; it’s what we do with the information and knowledge derived from such investigation which could, and have.

In attempting to fulfil our desire to understand the universe, being objective feels good, but this in no way demonstrates that it actually gets anyone towards this goal. It just feels good because objectivity makes us feel reassured.

It seems to me more practical to ask if the desire is sated through all this objective examination, and if it is not then investigate what is going on more deeply.

I’m not sure if I should interpret this as pure bollocks or if you’re simply looking at objectivity through an extremely peculiar lens here.

Yes, and we have repeatedly failed throughout history. We do not understand the universe. We do not know reality beyond the representations that appear. This, I submit, is because one is simply following a behaviour which feels good rather than truly seeking the answers.

This I’m much surer of: it’s simply nonsense. We understand the universe much better through objective investigation. It is also the very essence for the self-correcting mechanism in science, weeding out ideas that simply doesn’t work, and why it’s so successful in prediction.

It strikes me that a more personal philosophical and self-examinatory approach is likely to yeild better results, though by their nature they may be hard to transmit to others!

Better results in regards to what? About understanding your own personal experiences or supernovas?

[Lithrael]

Will you travel?

Well, with the hypothetical foolproof version, sure I would. I don't make any distinction between me and exactly-the-same-as-me. A death that results in exactly the same as me having a great time, and dying for another exactly the same as me plus vacation to come back to do whatever I was going to do doesn't look like a net loss to me. I would still consider that new person to be me. The discontinuity in consciousness doesn't bother me at all. Life's too damn short for such quibbles. Am I the materialist you were looking for?

[arthwollipot]

Materialists do not believe in persisting selfhoodWait, what?

I admit that I've been pretty much skim reading this thread for the last few pages, so I'm sorry if I missed this bit.

Who ever said that materialists do not believe in persisting selfhood?

[Nick227]

Then you agree that, according to the definition of "I" that was given, "I" exists.

There is a definition. There is at least one entity that fits that definition. Anything else is just you generating strawmen.

"I" exists in the same way Bigfoot exists.

There's no point, to my mind, in trying to prove the existence of "I" objectively. It's a foregone conclusion that you're not going to get anywhere. "I" is an artifact of thinking. A thinking organism needs an "I," it needs to identify with thought and feeling. Finally there is no actual "it" that is doing the identifying. It is merely that the action of identification makes it appear that way. There is a third party process creating the sensation of first person.

There are thus whole heaps of issues with your viewpoint that "a system examines itself," because actually it does not do this, certainly not if we are talking about a human system. There are representations. There are thoughts. These realities combine to create notions of self, not the other way around. No one is actually examining. No one is actually observing.

Nick

[Nick227]

It entirely depends on the mechanism of the machine.

If the continuity of information flowing through my neurons can be assured down to a certain level, then yes.

If not, then no.

Why does this matter? The information flowing through the neurons will change as the body is recreated in a different location. So what? If you appreciate that selfhood is a recreatable process, not a fixed entity, what difference does it make? Your sense of "I" is anyway living and dying constantly as thoughts drift in and out of awareness. Everything that a materialist can legitimately cling on to is recreated.

You seem to me to be most definitely a Cartesian Materialist, RD. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Nick

[Nick227]

Can we do anything without it being a behaviour? Simply being objective isn’t going to do that much in terms of security and satisfaction; it’s what we do with the information and knowledge derived from such investigation which could, and have.

Why would simply being objective not create security? Following science and being objective seems to me to create security in the short term - we have better transportation, some diseases have disappeared, better childcare, we can expect to live longer. But at the same time there's global warming, wmds, rampant poverty and starvation. I see no evidence that the mindless application of objectivity achieves anything very much. I agree that it needs to be applied correctly, and one of the first things to grasp are the immense limitations of objectivity.



I’m not sure if I should interpret this as pure bollocks or if you’re simply looking at objectivity through an extremely peculiar lens here.


I'm looking at the results. Is our world any safer now than it was a thousand years ago. In some ways, yes, some diseases have been routed, at least temporarily, but in many ways no. We seem forever on the edge of some kind of global calamity. I'm just looking at the results of objective investigation rationally. Has it worked? Has it sated the desire for knowledge? Do we feel like we've really got somewhere with it? I don't personally, and I don't know many who do.

What is it to carry on pursuing a behaviour when it does not achieve the result promised, when it does not work. Usually that kind of behaviour is termed "addiction."


This I’m much surer of: it’s simply nonsense. We understand the universe much better through objective investigation. It is also the very essence for the self-correcting mechanism in science, weeding out ideas that simply doesn’t work, and why it’s so successful in prediction.


We understand **** all, and any truly honest scientist or philosopher will admit this. All we have learned is what happens when you look out at the world through one filter.

Nick

[Nick227]

Well, with the hypothetical foolproof version, sure I would. I don't make any distinction between me and exactly-the-same-as-me. A death that results in exactly the same as me having a great time, and dying for another exactly the same as me plus vacation to come back to do whatever I was going to do doesn't look like a net loss to me. I would still consider that new person to be me. The discontinuity in consciousness doesn't bother me at all. Life's too damn short for such quibbles. Am I the materialist you were looking for?

Yes, you sound promising!

In projecting into the future, when I consider that Nick227.02 is chilling on a beach on Ko Tao, it seems that this Nick227 is not me, and that Nick227.01 has died in a teletransporter. Yet, to my mind, these considerations are not really consistent with materialism. Selfhood is just an ongoing process. The "I" is anyway constantly dying and being reborn. If I consider simply getting on a flight to Thailand it feels a lot less emotionally charged. Yet the "I" that arrives there will have died and been reborn with each thought along the way. "I" is simply a thought-based process. That which the "I" seems to refer to are simply more processes. In reality, the emotions that arise in considering the Teletransporter Th.Exp are simply that which is in the way of being truly a materialist.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

There are thus whole heaps of issues with your viewpoint that "a system examines itself," because actually it does not do this, certainly not if we are talking about a human system. There are representations. There are thoughts. These realities combine to create notions of self, not the other way around. No one is actually examining. No one is actually observing.


And you still claim you are not an idealist?

This is utter idealist nonsense.

You say there are representations. You say there are thoughts. Yet you claim nobody is actually in possession of those representations or thoughts. That is idealism Nick.

And it is nothing but garbage. You have no evidence whatsoever for such a claim. We know of thousands of systems that reference themselves. You claim those systems don't actually exist. What are you talking about? What are any idealists talking about?

[rocketdodger]

Why does this matter? The information flowing through the neurons will change as the body is recreated in a different location. So what? If you appreciate that selfhood is a recreatable process, not a fixed entity, what difference does it make? Your sense of "I" is anyway living and dying constantly as thoughts drift in and out of awareness. Everything that a materialist can legitimately cling on to is recreated.

I am the totality of the information flowing through my brain. Below some level, discrepancies are tolerable and will not consciously affect my perception of existence. Destroying and recreating individual neurons correctly probably won't alter my perception much.

But having the entire system destroyed and then recreated at once certainly will. It would not be the same "I."

If you want to use the teletransporter on me when I am unconscious, then that is a different story -- I would probably go for it, since my opinion is that our running software gets wiped every time we sleep anyway, and I wouldn't know the difference.

If you want to argue that the teletransporter is instantaneous, then that is also a different story -- I would use it conscious because, mathematically, the I at the source could not perceive an end to existence and would be equivalent to the I at the destination. And at any rate one could argue that such an instantaneous transfer is indistinguishable from reality as we know it.

But I do not have those constraints in original question, so I still say no.

You seem to me to be most definitely a Cartesian Materialist, RD. Perhaps I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

[rocketdodger]

I see no evidence that the mindless application of objectivity achieves anything very much. I agree that it needs to be applied correctly, and one of the first things to grasp are the immense limitations of objectivity.

Ahhh, the same tired mantra of the crackpot -- "your way leads to bad things, so try my way!"

Well, Nick, tell us what to do. Give us an option. Come up with a plan. What do you propose?

How should we change objectivity so that we can make "real" progress when it comes to making our lives better (since apparently you don't think we have made any)?

I suspect your answer will be along the lines of something that has no supporting evidence, leads to no tangible results, and involves ulterior motives -- like all crackpot schemes.

We are waiting.

I'm looking at the results. Is our world any safer now than it was a thousand years ago. In some ways, yes, some diseases have been routed, at least temporarily, but in many ways no. We seem forever on the edge of some kind of global calamity. I'm just looking at the results of objective investigation rationally. Has it worked? Has it sated the desire for knowledge? Do we feel like we've really got somewhere with it? I don't personally, and I don't know many who do.

What is it to carry on pursuing a behaviour when it does not achieve the result promised, when it does not work. Usually that kind of behaviour is termed "addiction."

So you have gone from an idealist to a crackpot, claiming that "objectivity" "does not work."

You claim you "don't know many who do?" What about the entire scientific community?

We understand **** all, and any truly honest scientist or philosopher will admit this. All we have learned is what happens when you look out at the world through one filter.

I suppose you have suggestions for other filters? Otherwise there would be no point to all your ranting.

So lets hear the suggestions Nick. What other filters, besides "objectivity," can we use?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Why would simply being objective not create security? Following science
and being objective seems to me to create security in the short term - we have better transportation, some diseases have disappeared, better childcare, we can expect to live longer.

For example for the reasons you have alluded to yourself (you seem to argue against yourself now).

Simply being objective does not guarantee security if you don’t have any means to change perceived insecure circumstances. Using science and investigating the world has indeed given us more effective tools by which we have been able to change some circumstances to the better, some to the worse.

Your whole notion about objectivity just feeling good is simply too naïve to be taken seriously: it’s the choices we make and the outcome of our actions, and much more, that seems to create more security (or more insecurity). Choices can be guided by science though – usually they work better than pure luck or faith.

But at the same time there's global warming, wmds, rampant poverty and starvation. I see no evidence that the mindless application of objectivity achieves anything very much. I agree that it needs to be applied correctly, and one of the first things to grasp are the immense limitations of objectivity.

First of all, we know much about global warming through science, and thus such knowledge could potentially create additional feelings of insecurity. Second, industrial and technological advancement is a direct result from objective investigation. Not all of it creates security thou. In fact, with the increased knowledge derived from science we have learned that there are many more potential dangers – again, many as a result from our own doings, but also some that we don’t have partaken in, but simply become aware of through science. I wouldn’t say that increased awareness of a potential global mayhem is something which increases feelings of security.

For instance Ulrich Beck’s Risk society is a pretty good introduction to the double edged problems with science in contemporary society.

I'm looking at the results. Is our world any safer now than it was a thousand years ago. In some ways, yes, some diseases have been routed, at least temporarily, but in many ways no. We seem forever on the edge of some kind of global calamity. I'm just looking at the results of objective investigation rationally.

Are you trying to look at the results objectively? It seems you do, and thus you feel confident enough to say that your assessment is correct.

The thing is Nick, we have always been close to some kind of global calamity, mass extinctions have happened, and asteroids have collided with the earth. Humans seem to be able to make it happen too.

Has it worked?

Yes, to a degree.

Has it sated the desire for knowledge?

Yes, to a degree, although the desire for more knowledge might not ever be fulfilled.

Do we feel like we've really got somewhere with it? I don't personally, and I don't know many who do.

Yes, quite a bit. For instance it has made it possible for you to project your own somewhat misplaced frustration on the internet, to people from all around the world.


What is it to carry on pursuing a behaviour when it does not achieve the result promised, when it does not work. Usually that kind of behaviour is termed "addiction."

I’m not sure what promises you think have been provided. For understanding how stuff seems to operate, it has worked pretty well I would say.

We understand **** all, and any truly honest scientist or philosopher will admit this. All we have learned is what happens when you look out at the world through one filter.

And that’s probably the best filter we have, given the limitations you so much want to bring forth. It’s just silly to deny the progress we have made in understanding how stuff seem to works. We don’t even know what our limitations are, yet you go on about some other notion of knowledge which you haven’t even tried to explain.

[lupus_in_fabula]

"I" exists in the same way Bigfoot exists.

Not quite. For systems which operate through a sense of selfhood we have tangible evidence – at least humans and maybe some animals too. For bigfoots, not so much. Perhaps a better example would be: “I” exists in the same way as hunger exists. There are certain processes involved which we can study, and those processes can at least in principle be distinguished from other processes, which is also the case with distinguishing different systems from each other.

There's no point, to my mind, in trying to prove the existence of "I" objectively. It's a foregone conclusion that you're not going to get anywhere. "I" is an artifact of thinking. A thinking organism needs an "I," it needs to identify with thought and feeling. Finally there is no actual "it" that is doing the identifying. It is merely that the action of identification makes it appear that way. There is a third party process creating the sensation of first person.

The existence of “I” is a matter of definition. For pragmatic reasons I would say it’s quite sufficient to say that “I” is the distinguishable system wherein the sensation of “I” arises and wherein it’s perceived as such.

The reason for scientific investigation about these matters is to gain an understanding about those processes, what they are, and how they work. That could eventually also lead to a more accurate definition.

[Nick227]

I am the totality of the information flowing through my brain. Below some level, discrepancies are tolerable and will not consciously affect my perception of existence. Destroying and recreating individual neurons correctly probably won't alter my perception much.

But having the entire system destroyed and then recreated at once certainly will. It would not be the same "I."

I find your logic utterly Cartesian. It is not your brain. It is not your body. The notion that these entities have possessors is simply created through thinking. Everything you are is simply a process, including the process that ascribes possession to all the rest of it. I'm sorry, RD, but you are utterly immersed in duality here.

In the context of this experiment it is utterly meaningless to try and define yourself. All that happens is just more thought. You interrogate a narrative and get another narrative. So what? It has no meaning in this context, and you will be equally capable of attempting to self-define in this manner after teleportation.

Nick

[Nick227]

Ahhh, the same tired mantra of the crackpot -- "your way leads to bad things, so try my way!"

Well, Nick, tell us what to do. Give us an option. Come up with a plan. What do you propose?


OK. Objectivity has no meaning until you can meditate. Until you can be conscious and also thoughtless there is no context for objectivity, no background. Until the tracks of identification are pursued and broken objectivity is little different from an addiction.

Over the various dialogues we've indulged in I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the reality of self is weird. It is deeply counter-intuitive. It is really not how it seems. You refuse to believe me. You apparently refuse to believe Blackmore and Dennett when they say the same thing. You cannot reconstruct objectivity and come up with "a better way." You can only look, really look, really turn around and look, and see what happens.

Nick

[Nick227]

The existence of “I” is a matter of definition. For pragmatic reasons I would say it’s quite sufficient to say that “I” is the distinguishable system wherein the sensation of “I” arises and wherein it’s perceived as such.

Well, as I've pointed out before, all "I"'s would say that! It's totally subjective and equally meaningless. "I" is an artifact of thinking. Stop thinking and you stop I'ing. Your pragmatism is, I submit, an attempt to reconcile the inherited needs of the self, created through evolution, with the need for truth. I'm skeptical of the ability of pragmatism to fulfil either.


The reason for scientific investigation about these matters is to gain an understanding about those processes, what they are, and how they work. That could eventually also lead to a more accurate definition.

It could be interesting.

Nick

[Nick227]

And you still claim you are not an idealist?

This is utter idealist nonsense.

You say there are representations. You say there are thoughts. Yet you claim nobody is actually in possession of those representations or thoughts. That is idealism Nick.

No it isn't, RD. Read some strong AI materialism. Read Dennett 1991. The notion that someone is in possession of representations or thoughts is dualism. No one is watching the Cartesian Theatre, RD.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. When you start to properly examine selfhood, it's gets weird. You have to be able to go with the weirdness, or you will get nowhere.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, as I've pointed out before, all "I"'s would say that! It's totally subjective and equally meaningless.

Including you!

Although I would dispute it being completely subjective and meaningless, of course. It is not totally subjective because it’s possible to distinguish behaviour between processes and systems – so, at the very least it’s intersubjective. And it’s not meaningless either for the simple reason that it is the way by which “I” know which mouth to put food in when “I” feel hungry.

"I" is an artifact of thinking. Stop thinking and you stop I'ing.

Or simply go to deep sleep. That doesn’t change the fact that the organism also awakens from deep sleep and a great deal of time spent awake is happening through operations of thinking. There’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The sooner we accept this simple fact, the lesser the weirdness. You managed to post your reply through thinking, didn’t you?

I’m also hungry until I have satisfied that craving by eating. How much tautology must you eat before you’re satisfied?

Your pragmatism is, I submit, an attempt to reconcile the inherited needs of the self, created through evolution, with the need for truth.

I don’t think amateur psychology is quite sufficient here. Defining “I” as I did is pragmatic for the simple reason that it is the way by which we usually refer to the entity doing the majority of its stuff from a first-person perspective. After all, you know when you’re doing something and you can distinguish someone else doing something to you, don’t you?

There are exemptions to this however (when probing deep enough), but in general it seems quite proper (a.k.a. being pragmatic).

I'm skeptical of the ability of pragmatism to fulfil either.

I’m also skeptical about anything fulfilling the need to know more about the universe.

“I” also want to know how stuff outside “me” work. What would be the best way to do that? Gazing inwards or outwards?

[rocketdodger]

I find your logic utterly Cartesian. It is not your brain. It is not your body. The notion that these entities have possessors is simply created through thinking.

Duh. So what? all notions are created through thinking.

Everything you are is simply a process, including the process that ascribes possession to all the rest of it.

So what? If process P ascribes possession of system S, then why can't P call S its "own" system? If P communicates with other processes, and they understand that S is possessed by P, why can't they say S is owned by P?

If you knew at all what you were talking about, you would see that. But you don't. As I have said over and over, you are nothing but an idealist woo pretending to argue materialism in an attempt to trick readers.

I'm sorry, RD, but you are utterly immersed in duality here.

You seem to think so. Yet you are the only one who thinks so. Isn't that curious...


In the context of this experiment it is utterly meaningless to try and define yourself. All that happens is just more thought. You interrogate a narrative and get another narrative. So what? It has no meaning in this context, and you will be equally capable of attempting to self-define in this manner after teleportation.

I see two possibilities here.

1) You are so much smarter than me that the above paragraph actually makes sense to you.

2) You have no idea what you are talking about and try to hide that fact with word salad.

Either way, I can't respond.

[rocketdodger]

OK. Objectivity has no meaning until you can meditate. Until you can be conscious and also thoughtless there is no context for objectivity, no background. Until the tracks of identification are pursued and broken objectivity is little different from an addiction.

Is anyone else following this conversation? Am I the only one who thinks Nick is a woo?

Over the various dialogues we've indulged in I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the reality of self is weird. It is deeply counter-intuitive. It is really not how it seems. You refuse to believe me.

I refuse to accept "your word for it." I would like something resembling an argument. In a whole year all you have provided is word salad. Provide an argument and maybe someone will believe you.

You apparently refuse to believe Blackmore and Dennett when they say the same thing.

Citation? Can you reference them saying anything resembling the content of your rantings?

You cannot reconstruct objectivity and come up with "a better way." You can only look, really look, really turn around and look, and see what happens.

...ok...

In the meantime, will you burn your computer, because objectivity was responsible for it?

I didn't think so.

[rocketdodger]

No it isn't, RD. Read some strong AI materialism. Read Dennett 1991. The notion that someone is in possession of representations or thoughts is dualism. No one is watching the Cartesian Theatre, RD.

Um, no, that isn't dualism, or at least, not the dualism everyone speaks of here, which seems to be the dualism everyone speaks of in general.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. When you start to properly examine selfhood, it's gets weird. You have to be able to go with the weirdness, or you will get nowhere.

So you say. Does anyone in the fields of cognitive or computer science agree with your kooky theories about objectivity? Please provide references.

[Nick227]

Including you!

Although I would dispute it being completely subjective and meaningless, of course.

Of course. So would I. All "I"'s would.

It is not totally subjective because it’s possible to distinguish behaviour between processes and systems – so, at the very least it’s intersubjective. And it’s not meaningless either for the simple reason that it is the way by which “I” know which mouth to put food in when “I” feel hungry.

The "I" comes afterward here. You don't need an "I" to feed yourself.



Or simply go to deep sleep. That doesn’t change the fact that the organism also awakens from deep sleep and a great deal of time spent awake is happening through operations of thinking. There’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The sooner we accept this simple fact, the lesser the weirdness. You managed to post your reply through thinking, didn’t you?

Look, thoughts happen. Identification with thought happens. No one is managing to do anything in actuality. That is simply a means of expressing, of relating. The articulation of inner states satisfies an evolutionarily-created need for forming social bonds. This does not mean that it can satisfy all needs.

I’m also hungry until I have satisfied that craving by eating. How much tautology must you eat before you’re satisfied?

Food satisfies hunger. Knowledge acquired through objectivity does not satisfy a craving for truth. That is my experience. Or, better, how it might be articulated.



I don’t think amateur psychology is quite sufficient here. Defining “I” as I did is pragmatic for the simple reason that it is the way by which we usually refer to the entity doing the majority of its stuff from a first-person perspective. After all, you know when you’re doing something and you can distinguish someone else doing something to you, don’t you?

I don't dispute that it is healthy to identify with, articulate, and express inner states, and for such activity the "I" is a prerequisite. Else one risks descending into subjectivity, introspection, some slippery slope potentially towards psychosis. But that's it, if you ask me. The "I" exists to integrate thinking processes, to render subjectivity into heterophenomenology, to create psychological health, to fulfil need. But once this is done I believe one will find that a craving for truth cannot be satisfied with this "I" mechanism. This is why I pull up your "pragmatism."

Nick

[Nick227]

Citation? Can you reference them saying anything resembling the content of your rantings?

Well, I'm round my girlfriend's house at the moment, but read Susan Blackmore "Consciousness: An Introduction." I seem to recall that it's structured in blocks of 3 chapters. I think she starts in on selfhood somewhere around Chap 7. Otherwise Daniel Dennett, "Consciousness Explained." He tries to sate his desire to lambast fake materialists at pretty much every possible juncture available throughout the whole book. Don't know if he succeeded! Of the two, Blackmore is more clear on selfhood, if you ask me.

Nick

[Lithrael]

Yes, you sound promising!

(...) Selfhood is just an ongoing process. The "I" is anyway constantly dying and being reborn. If I consider simply getting on a flight to Thailand it feels a lot less emotionally charged. Yet the "I" that arrives there will have died and been reborn with each thought along the way.

I agree with this, but I don't really think that others in here would really disagree with my stance either. It looks like a semantic, hair-splitting argument to me. RD's caveats amount to little more than 'make sure the teleporter really for sure works.' The nits he picks are just cause nobody knows for sure how careful one would have to be to maintain a 'self' with satisfactory precision. I'm dismissing these nits because you state the question with the machine definitely totally working to satisfactory precision. I mean, if the thing was the same sort of shock to the system as EST I wouldn't be so keen on it either. But the fact is plenty of people do things that alter their 'self' all the time so my nitpick level isn't awfully high, if I get to trade for a great bonus that my 'self' will enjoy.

That other stuff makes no sense to me at all though. People have been meditating at least as long as they've been doing science. I can't say I'm knocked flat by their results.

[Nick227]

I agree with this, but I don't really think that others in here would really disagree with my stance either. It looks like a semantic, hair-splitting argument to me. RD's caveats amount to little more than 'make sure the teleporter really for sure works.' The nits he picks are just cause nobody knows for sure how careful one would have to be to maintain a 'self' with satisfactory precision.

Well, I restarted the thread by quoting Blackmore's original question for a reason. That being that all sorts of emotionally-charged dramas usually abound with this thought experiment. She wrote...

The box is 100% safe and reliable. If you won’t go in, this has to be for some other reason than that it might go wrong.

RD's caveats are BS, if you ask me. I don't find him materialist. IMO, he just likes to talk the talk. 'Tis a common thing. But da inquistion continues in da hood.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

The "I" comes afterward here. You don't need an "I" to feed yourself.


Then explain how it would be possible to feed yourself (I mean, the collection of atoms that typed post number 4150605) without some type of knowledge of the relationship between yourself (the collection of atoms, or body, that needs the food) and the world external to you (the collection of atoms).

Because that is exactly how lupus and I have defined "I."

[rocketdodger]

RD's caveats are BS, if you ask me.

That is because you are completely uneducated when it comes to cognitive science, computer science, and the computational model of consciousness.

I don't find him materialist. IMO, he just likes to talk the talk.


Of course, you are consistently unable to provide a reason for why I am not a materialist when asked... but who is keeping track, eh? You can say whatever you want on a forum, over and over, and if you say it enough times, maybe someone will believe you!

[Lithrael]

RD's caveats are BS, if you ask me. I don't find him materialist. (...)

I don't know, it really just looks like a mistrust of the question to me. Like he wants to make sure "all the information from every cell" includes all the ongoing chemical and electrical and what-have-you-I-haven't-read-biology-in-a-while processes. Like I said I don't bring it up because I take 'safe and reliable' at face value, ie, others using it don't find their friends going 'omfg X has sure changed since he teleported to Seattle & back' and suddenly no longer like tea or Brad Dourif.

Seriously though I do not at all follow the 'other avenues' part of this. Many people fail to find satisfaction in straight science and still thirst for 'something more' but lots of people are pretty damn content with it, too. So this search for 'deeper meaning' doesn't seem like an overpowering universal constant to me. More like a powerful predilection. And it just seems like it comes from the basic animal need to feel secure, and feeling insecurity in the fact that science doesn't know everything. It seems like you're proposing there *is* a way to know everything, to which I say again, I'm not all that bowled over by the words of the philosophers, mystics and trippers that spend their lives looking for it.

[lupus_in_fabula]

The "I" comes afterward here. You don't need an "I" to feed yourself.

I would say that you pretty much do. Without at least a rudimentary ability to distinguish systems from each other, it seems pretty improbable that you just manage to feed yourself by pure luck.

While you could say that a more structured awareness of an “I” comes later, i.e. as a kind of ‘taking possession of’ events happening, that awareness will have an effect upon what the organism does next – like figuring out where to get more food. In a society this is of course much more elevated because most of us aren’t in direct contact with the food source; we get food by indirect means which require an operating “I”. Most of our daily business consists of figuring out relationships between different “I:s”.

Look, thoughts happen. Identification with thought happens. No one is managing to do anything in actuality. That is simply a means of expressing, of relating. The articulation of inner states satisfies an evolutionarily-created need for forming social bonds. This does not mean that it can satisfy all needs.

Again, it could be foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, on a molecular level there might not be anyone... :rolleyes:

I’m skeptical about ever reaching total satisfaction – it would be momentary at best. Total persisting personal satisfaction, whatever that means, might not even be preferable from a collective or survival standpoint.

Food satisfies hunger. Knowledge acquired through objectivity does not satisfy a craving for truth. That is my experience. Or, better, how it might be articulated.

That is your experience and it appears that you have created a kind of preconceived personal standard for how you would feel if you were totally satisfied truth wise. Somehow you think that standard would actually work, and that it is a universal one – I’m quite skeptical about that. I think the whole notion of a universal truth seems to lead to a childish pretension game.

I don't dispute that it is healthy to identify with, articulate, and express inner states, and for such activity the "I" is a prerequisite. Else one risks descending into subjectivity, introspection, some slippery slope potentially towards psychosis. But that's it, if you ask me. The "I" exists to integrate thinking processes, to render subjectivity into heterophenomenology, to create psychological health, to fulfil need. But once this is done I believe one will find that a craving for truth cannot be satisfied with this "I" mechanism. This is why I pull up your "pragmatism."

You have made the craving for truth into a problem of some sort. I haven’t. I think human life is a constant fluctuation between degrees of satisfaction; feelings and states are momentary; the come and they go, until they stop, and we no longer exist. I find the whole dance, as long as it lasts, quite spectacular; the craving itself is kind of fascinating in its own right.

[Nick227]

Then explain how it would be possible to feed yourself (I mean, the collection of atoms that typed post number 4150605) without some type of knowledge of the relationship between yourself (the collection of atoms, or body, that needs the food) and the world external to you (the collection of atoms).

Because that is exactly how lupus and I have defined "I."

Well, you can choose to define it as you wish. I consider it an effect created through identification with thought. You can eat without having to consciously manage the process. You can eat without thinking, indeed many people do!

Nick

[Nick227]

I would say that you pretty much do. Without at least a rudimentary ability to distinguish systems from each other, it seems pretty improbable that you just manage to feed yourself by pure luck.

But you don't need to think to eat. Animals without any known capacity to think manage to nourish themselves. They develop the instinct. Remember we are talking about "I" here, not the wider range of processes which relate to Selfhood, of which I would consider "I" to be but one aspect.

While you could say that a more structured awareness of an “I” comes later, i.e. as a kind of ‘taking possession of’ events happening, that awareness will have an effect upon what the organism does next – like figuring out where to get more food. In a society this is of course much more elevated because most of us aren’t in direct contact with the food source; we get food by indirect means which require an operating “I”. Most of our daily business consists of figuring out relationships between different “I:s”.

Not really. You don't know whether person is behaving from the "I" perspective until you communicate with them. That an organism demonstrates selfhood does not mean it has an "I." To have an "I" it is going to need to be able to think.

This might seem like a moot point and it no doubt would be in many fields of discussion. But if you are going to really take a look at Selfhood then I think it's necessary. It's needed to examine and distinguish different aspects of selfhood as much as is reasonably possible.

Again, it could be foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, on a molecular level there might not be anyone... :rolleyes:

I’m skeptical about ever reaching total satisfaction – it would be momentary at best. Total persisting personal satisfaction, whatever that means, might not even be preferable from a collective or survival standpoint.

That is your experience and it appears that you have created a kind of preconceived personal standard for how you would feel if you were totally satisfied truth wise. Somehow you think that standard would actually work, and that it is a universal one – I’m quite skeptical about that. I think the whole notion of a universal truth seems to lead to a childish pretension game.

You have made the craving for truth into a problem of some sort. I haven’t. I think human life is a constant fluctuation between degrees of satisfaction; feelings and states are momentary; the come and they go, until they stop, and we no longer exist. I find the whole dance, as long as it lasts, quite spectacular; the craving itself is kind of fascinating in its own right.

Well, if truth isn't a problem for you that's how you are. For me I find it quite a driving force these days. I've struggled my way up Maslow's Hieracy of Needs and still enjoy the challenge.

Nick

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

But you don't need to think to eat. Animals without any known capacity to think manage to nourish themselves. They develop the instinct. Remember we are talking about "I" here, not the wider range of processes which relate to Selfhood, of which I would consider "I" to be but one aspect.

And yet I know it’s me who’s eating and not someone else.

Not really. You don't know whether person is behaving from the "I" perspective until you communicate with them. That an organism demonstrates selfhood does not mean it has an "I." To have an "I" it is going to need to be able to think.

And since most of us live in a society it’s pretty much given that other people we meet also have the ability to think, communicate and make distinctions. If someone demonstrates selfhood, then you might as well conclude that that someone knows he’s he and not you.

This might seem like a moot point and it no doubt would be in many fields of discussion. But if you are going to really take a look at Selfhood then I think it's necessary. It's needed to examine and distinguish different aspects of selfhood as much as is reasonably possible.

What is so remarkable about an organism observing itself and realizing “it” is doing it to “itself”? While it’s true that if probing long and deep enough, momentary fluctuations about how it feels while doing it could be out of the ordinary, most thinking organisms also understand that those fluctuations – perhaps a momentary dissociation from the sense of “I” – still happens within itself and not in someone else.

[rocketdodger]

Well, you can choose to define it as you wish.

I told you how I define it. For a self referential system S, "I" is the reference of S, within S.

Thus thermostats have "I", worms have "I", dogs have "I", and humans have "I".

It just so happens that the self-reference of a human mind is much more complex and involved than that of a thermostat mind.

I consider it an effect created through identification with thought.

But you said yourself that "effect", "identification," and "thought" are all just processes.

So there is no "effect," there is no "identification," and there is no "thought," just like you contend that there is no "I."

You can't even communicate with us because, actually, your nouns mean nothing (they are all just different terms for processes), you are just a process, and we are just processes.

You can't even meditate to reach the truth, because meditation is just a process.

If you think anything exists at all, then you are not a real materialist, because the only thing that exists are just processes, and they can't think, so you aren't even thinking when you think you think, because you are just a process processing.

See how annoying it is?

Ever wonder why nobody keeps up a discussion with you?

[rocketdodger]

That an organism demonstrates selfhood does not mean it has an "I."

What is the qualitative difference between "I" and selfhood?

To have an "I" it is going to need to be able to think.


Wait... I thought you said "I" doesn't exist....

But if you are talking about it... then....

[lupus_in_fabula]

Wait... I thought you said "I" doesn't exist....

But if you are talking about it... then....


That is exactly the problem with discussing the "I". People tend to change the description level at a whim. The common fallacy is then to think one is saying something revolutionary by proclaiming the sudden non-existence of a previously discussed phenomenon, when in fact all that has happened is a change in description level. Thus we can make almost anything into a "non-existing phenomenon" (which sounds kind of weird, doesn't it?).

[Dancing David]

Nich certainly has some strange beliefs, most of which are not supported by any research. There is the common self of the body, that is all that there is, Nick227 has some strange beliefs that extend past that. He has some beleif that if you loose you subjective identity , suddenly you life gets better.

Nick also has an obsession with projecting some strange magical beliefs onto others. This is partly because it reinforces Nick making a living through unethical therapeutic treatments that are unfounded and untested.

[Nick227]

And yet I know it’s me who’s eating and not someone else.

I would say there's awareness of the process going on, but "I" only comes into it when we start to articulate what's going on.

And since most of us live in a society it’s pretty much given that other people we meet also have the ability to think, communicate and make distinctions. If someone demonstrates selfhood, then you might as well conclude that that someone knows he’s he and not you.

For sure, but to my mind there's still no need to treat selfhood as a priori. There are things happening. They only happen to someone when thinking and identification with thought takes place.

Nick

[Nick227]

I told you how I define it. For a self referential system S, "I" is the reference of S, within S.

Thus thermostats have "I", worms have "I", dogs have "I", and humans have "I".

It just so happens that the self-reference of a human mind is much more complex and involved than that of a thermostat mind.

Personally, I would not consider that there is an "I" until there is the thought "I," or the assumption of "I" created by thinking.

But you said yourself that "effect", "identification," and "thought" are all just processes.

So there is no "effect," there is no "identification," and there is no "thought," just like you contend that there is no "I."

You can't even communicate with us because, actually, your nouns mean nothing (they are all just different terms for processes), you are just a process, and we are just processes.

You can't even meditate to reach the truth, because meditation is just a process.

Well, the barriers of language are considerable here. The assumption in articulation is that one is giving a concrete statement of "what's going on." But of course this is not the case. It is merely that a narrative is being created. That it can utilise symbols, infer processes, or talk of relationships does not mean that these things actually exist, beyond our conception of them, merely that this is how we articulate.

You seem to me to be assuming that the narrative mirrors reality. Narratives are just narratives. Thinking is just thinking.

Nick

[Nick227]

What is the qualitative difference between "I" and selfhood?

I would say that the sense of self is created through a variety of neurological processes - mirroring, body-map, some effects of attenting, perhaps. "I" to me is another aspect of selfhood, one created via thinking. So to me the qualitative difference is that "I" is one aspect of selfhood but not the whole of it.

Wait... I thought you said "I" doesn't exist....

But if you are talking about it... then....

Well, what I said was that there is no hard, objective evidence for "I." This is not the same thing. Using the word "It" certainly assumes selfhood, not necessarily "I."

I would not dispute that there is the sensation of "I." I wouldn't be able to participate in many discussions without it! I also would not dispute that this "I" is useful and indeed necessary. Without it language cannot identify with what it articulates. It is just that I don't figure the "I" to be a priori, to quote the mistake Descartes made. It just chugs along somewhere after the fact.

Nick

[Nick227]

He has some beleif that if you loose you subjective identity , suddenly you life gets better.

I do consider that subjectivity may be a pathological disorder, yes, if that's what you mean. This is kind of an extreme position, though, which I do accept. I've noticed that people who articulate and express more of their inner states do seem to be happier and healthier. It may even be that this is the "I"'s only raison d'etre.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

Nich certainly has some strange beliefs, most of which are not supported by any research. There is the common self of the body, that is all that there is, Nick227 has some strange beliefs that extend past that. He has some beleif that if you loose you subjective identity , suddenly you life gets better.

Nick also has an obsession with projecting some strange magical beliefs onto others. This is partly because it reinforces Nick making a living through unethical therapeutic treatments that are unfounded and untested.

Is that his profession?

[rocketdodger]

Personally, I would not consider that there is an "I" until there is the thought "I," or the assumption of "I" created by thinking.

How is the "thought 'I'" qualitatively different from any other kind of self reference?

You seem to me to be assuming that the narrative mirrors reality. Narratives are just narratives. Thinking is just thinking.

Narratives are reality. Thoughts are reality. That is a consequence of materialism.

What you mean is that I assume thoughts mirror what they represent or reference in some way. Of course I assume that. What is the point of a reference if there is no useful correspondence between the reference and its referrent?

I don't assume they mirror exactly. Why should they? That would be very inefficient.

It is clear to me that you lack the requisite knowledge in the fields of cognitive or computer science to even understand the computational model of consciousness, let alone argue against it. Of course, that hasn't stopped anyone else in your shoes...

[Dancing David]

Is that his profession?

I don't know, but he stated that he engages in therapeutic practices with no research basis.

He also never understood Mercutio and got hung up on the teleporter as proof of something strange.

[Dancing David]

Nick has a preference for his narrative but they will tell you it is not a narrative. Sheesh.

[rocketdodger]

I would say that the sense of self is created through a variety of neurological processes - mirroring, body-map, some effects of attenting, perhaps. "I" to me is another aspect of selfhood, one created via thinking. So to me the qualitative difference is that "I" is one aspect of selfhood but not the whole of it.

What are the other aspects of selfhood that don't fall under "I?"



Well, what I said was that there is no hard, objective evidence for "I." This is not the same thing.

Yes, in the context of materialism, it is. Of course, if you were a materialist like you recently ceased pretending to be, you would understand that.

I would not dispute that there is the sensation of "I."

According to materialism, everything is material.

So how on Earth could something non-existent, in a material sense, evoke a sensation?

It can't. It is clearly nonsense to think it could. That is why dualism is nonsense.

Thus "I" exists. What it is and how it evokes that sensation are irrelevant. The fact that it evokes a sensation is objective proof of its existence.

Of course, if you were a materialist like you recently ceased pretending to be, you would understand that.

It is just that I don't figure the "I" to be a priori, to quote the mistake Descartes made. It just chugs along somewhere after the fact.


Nobody here has ever said otherwise.

[rocketdodger]

Nick has a preference for his narrative but they will tell you it is not a narrative. Sheesh.

I don't even think "narrative" is a very good word for... whatever he intends it to be used for.

I have always just assumed that he didn't know much about the underlying theory or mechanisms of the human brain and thus was restricted to using such ill-fitting terms.

[billydkid]

No.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I would say there's awareness of the process going on, but "I" only comes into it when we start to articulate what's going on.

I find it quite implausible that I simply articulate myself into existence, and that I have to keep on articulating in order to continue to exist. Although the sensation if “I” does fluctuate through out the day and in relation to activities, it is highly resilient to forgetfulness in the longer run.

Thus, as I already said, I prefer a more practical definition for “I”: “I” is the distinguishable system wherein the sensation of “I” arises and wherein it’s perceived as such.

For sure, but to my mind there's still no need to treat selfhood as a priori. There are things happening. They only happen to someone when thinking and identification with thought takes place.

While it’s true that there must be a process that creates the feeling of self (thus the process, whatever it is, is a priori), I find it impractical to simply limit the perspective to a first-person’s ephemeral sensation. If we assume there being an underlying process, then why not account for that into the definition, rather than simply focusing on the end-of-the-pipe result.

Hence, if a seagull flies into a chaps head, the collision is happening to someone, regardless of the chap loosing consciousness and not being “someone” at that particular moment. And when he wakes up, he will most probably conclude that he was unconscious for a while rather than that he wasn’t he during that particular time.

[Nick227]

How is the "thought 'I'" qualitatively different from any other kind of self reference?

Do you mean different from, for example, saying "Nick's thoughts?" If so, then I find it's usually far more emotive to identify. Saying "Nick's feeling happy" feels a lot different from saying "I'm feeling happy." The act of identifying with the inner state in this manner brings more feelings up. That's the qualitative difference.


Narratives are reality. Thoughts are reality. That is a consequence of materialism.

What you mean is that I assume thoughts mirror what they represent or reference in some way. Of course I assume that. What is the point of a reference if there is no useful correspondence between the reference and its referrent?



I'm not saying they do not reflect reality at all. I'm pointing out that thinking comes about after the fact. We use symbols and language to articulate what's going on for us and in so doing create experiences and notional self. Or rather, identification creates experience and notional self.

Nick

[Nick227]

What are the other aspects of selfhood that don't fall under "I?"

Body-map for example.

Yes, in the context of materialism, it is. Of course, if you were a materialist like you recently ceased pretending to be, you would understand that.

So you agree with me now....but I'm still wrong!



According to materialism, everything is material.

So how on Earth could something non-existent, in a material sense, evoke a sensation?

It can't. It is clearly nonsense to think it could. That is why dualism is nonsense.

Thus "I" exists. What it is and how it evokes that sensation are irrelevant. The fact that it evokes a sensation is objective proof of its existence.

The belief evokes a sensation. That you believe in something does not mean it must exist. Kids get very upset sometimes when they learn that there's no Father Christmas. This does not mean he exists.

What, I submit, is truly nonsense to a genuine materialist is the notion that someone is experiencing something. It's a linguistic convenience and a social and psychological necessity in many ways to behave in this manner, but that does not mean it's real. As soon as you posit experiencer-experience you are creating a duality. Things happen but they do not happen to anyone until thinking takes place. You can become aware of the monist, or at least non-dual, reality that constantly exists before the conceptualised duality created by the thinking mind comes about. This is why meditation, materialism and monism are very closely linked.

Nick

[Nick227]

I find it quite implausible that I simply articulate myself into existence, and that I have to keep on articulating in order to continue to exist. Although the sensation if “I” does fluctuate through out the day and in relation to activities, it is highly resilient to forgetfulness in the longer run.

Thus, as I already said, I prefer a more practical definition for “I”: “I” is the distinguishable system wherein the sensation of “I” arises and wherein it’s perceived as such.

Well, the more you keep thinking about it, the more it is anyway reinforced! So one might say that this "I" has a considerable investment in discussing endlessly! I think Susan Blackmore even considers "I" to be basically memetic in nature, though not completely sure about this.



While it’s true that there must be a process that creates the feeling of self (thus the process, whatever it is, is a priori), I find it impractical to simply limit the perspective to a first-person’s ephemeral sensation. If we assume there being an underlying process, then why not account for that into the definition, rather than simply focusing on the end-of-the-pipe result.

Hence, if a seagull flies into a chaps head, the collision is happening to someone, regardless of the chap loosing consciousness and not being “someone” at that particular moment. And when he wakes up, he will most probably conclude that he was unconscious for a while rather than that he wasn’t he during that particular time.

For sure, from the "I"'s perspective it is highly practical. On a social or psychological level it is practical and maybe even a necessity - identification can help prevent psychosis, for instance. However, imo if you want to know what is actually true and what is actually not then sometimes pragmatism and being practical may be have to be put aside for a while.

[rocketdodger]

Do you mean different from, for example, saying "Nick's thoughts?" If so, then I find it's usually far more emotive to identify. Saying "Nick's feeling happy" feels a lot different from saying "I'm feeling happy." The act of identifying with the inner state in this manner brings more feelings up. That's the qualitative difference.

1) Only because you grew up in a culture that uses "I" primarily for the self reference. Japanese, for instance, makes much less use of "I."

2) "More" feelings isn't a qualitative difference, it is a quantitative difference.

I'm not saying they do not reflect reality at all. I'm pointing out that thinking comes about after the fact. We use symbols and language to articulate what's going on for us and in so doing create experiences and notional self. Or rather, identification creates experience and notional self.

I can't comment on this because we disagree on the definitions for half of the words you used.

[rocketdodger]

Body-map for example.

You are claiming that your body-map is not part of your notion of yourself?

That is interesting because, to me, it seems like my notion of "the foot that is linked to the body that is me" is the same as my notion of "my foot."

When I step on a nail, I think "ow my foot."


So you agree with me now....but I'm still wrong!

No. My "yes" was a response to your "that is not the same thing."

In the context of materialism, the fact that "I" exists is hard objective evidence for "I."

The belief evokes a sensation. That you believe in something does not mean it must exist. Kids get very upset sometimes when they learn that there's no Father Christmas. This does not mean he exists.

Something exists to evoke the sensation. I can define "the real father christmas" to be "whatever it is that evokes the sensation of father christmas in a child," and it becomes a trivially true fact that such a thing exists.

Thus the real "I" exists -- it is simply whatever evokes the sensation of "I."

What, I submit, is truly nonsense to a genuine materialist is the notion that someone is experiencing something. It's a linguistic convenience and a social and psychological necessity in many ways to behave in this manner, but that does not mean it's real. As soon as you posit experiencer-experience you are creating a duality. Things happen but they do not happen to anyone until thinking takes place. You can become aware of the monist, or at least non-dual, reality that constantly exists before the conceptualised duality created by the thinking mind comes about. This is why meditation, materialism and monism are very closely linked.

No. It is only nonsense if you assume dualistic meanings for the terms involved.

If, on the other hand, you assume meanings such as "someone == a material system that human beings recognize as another human being" and "experiencing == a material process that occurs in human beings" then there is no problem at all.

And those are the types of meanings that are used and understood by materialists.

And this is the kind of thing you won't understand until you learn about materialism and cognitive/computer science.

[lupus_in_fabula]

For sure, from the "I"'s perspective it is highly practical. On a social or psychological level it is practical and maybe even a necessity - identification can help prevent psychosis, for instance. However, imo if you want to know what is actually true and what is actually not then sometimes pragmatism and being practical may be have to be put aside for a while.

I’m not sure what truth you’re referring to, but defining away the process underlying the self-referential behaviour of an organism is hardly productive. Immediately jumping below the description level it exists on doesn’t seem to be very fruitful, and neither is the consequential proclamation of non-existence especially enlightening.

[Nick227]

You are claiming that your body-map is not part of your notion of yourself?

I'm claiming that both body map and "I" are aspects of selfhood.

That is interesting because, to me, it seems like my notion of "the foot that is linked to the body that is me" is the same as my notion of "my foot."

When I step on a nail, I think "ow my foot."

Yes, those thoughts can come up.:)



In the context of materialism, the fact that "I" exists is hard objective evidence for "I."

Well, that might be your vision of materialism. I don't share it. To me your position is akin to a religious type claiming that "the fact that God exists is hard, objective evidence for God."

Something exists to evoke the sensation. I can define "the real father christmas" to be "whatever it is that evokes the sensation of father christmas in a child," and it becomes a trivially true fact that such a thing exists.

So, according to your vision of materialism Father Christmas exists?


Thus the real "I" exists -- it is simply whatever evokes the sensation of "I."


But is there really a sensation of "I?" I think I should not have used the word "sensation" before. There is a sensation of the body but "I" is not really a sensation. My mistake, apologies. Perhaps it would be better to use the phrase "sense of I", or "notion of I." There is a body map. There is behaviour derived from mirroring and attenting. There are thoughts. These processes go on and they maintain the sense of selfhood, but this does not mean that selfhood is real beyond this sense.

In breaking down the processes which create this sense of selfhood, including this sense of "I", so this notion of personal identity is inevitably dissipated.

In considering monism to be real, one is of course left with the question of how a monist reality can create such dualistic experiencing. This question can be dealt with here, because it can be seen that it is only with the arisal of thought and the presence of identification with thought that "I" arises. The bulk of duality is created through thinking.

No. It is only nonsense if you assume dualistic meanings for the terms involved.

If, on the other hand, you assume meanings such as "someone == a material system that human beings recognize as another human being" and "experiencing == a material process that occurs in human beings" then there is no problem at all.

Now you are, to my mind, instituting duality at an even deeper level. It's quite needless to do this imo. You are, I submit, doing just what Descartes did. He assumed that "I" must be present. He took it as a given. The pattern of identification in Descartes' brain caused this to happen so he could not see around his preconception.

There is simply no need to immerse yourself so deeply in duality. It is unnecessary to define things in such a complex manner when one appreciates that thoughts are just happening. When there is less identification the process by which a monist reality creates this dialectical reality becomes much clearer.

Nick

[Nick227]

I’m not sure what truth you’re referring to, but defining away the process underlying the self-referential behaviour of an organism is hardly productive. Immediately jumping below the description level it exists on doesn’t seem to be very fruitful, and neither is the consequential proclamation of non-existence especially enlightening.

Well, in simply considering this "self-referencing" conceptually there must to my mind be problems. If there are only phenomenal representations at what point does this "self" come into actuality? The organism is considered to be independent only through a variety of processes which take place. Thus it can be concluded that it is not actually separate, but that it merely appears to be. The notion that self-referencing is taking place only to my mind reinforces the illusion.

The majority of scientists and philosophers already accept monism. Thus the underlying nature is already accepted. All that is needed to begin to understand the bridge between monist reality and dualistic interpretation is to witness for yourself how an apparently dualised reality is constantly being created from a non-dual substrate.

Nick

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, in simply considering this "self-referencing" conceptually there must to my mind be problems. If there are only phenomenal representations at what point does this "self" come into actuality?

…only phenomenal representations? A more detailed approach would of course include the investigation of what exactly creates those representations, i.e. distinguishing what exactly is happening in the brain, where, and when. That would be where the “self” comes into actuality from a private point of view.

The organism is considered to be independent only through a variety of processes which take place. Thus it can be concluded that it is not actually separate, but that it merely appears to be. The notion that self-referencing is taking place only to my mind reinforces the illusion.

Don’t be silly. It is those specific processes that are under investigation. What you coin as illusion is trivially true in the broader context, like almost everything that deep down only appears to be independent.

The majority of scientists and philosophers already accept monism. Thus the underlying nature is already accepted.

Yes, I think I pointed this out to you some time ago already. That is why we first try to recognize what seem to be explicit patterns, distinguishable from each other, so that we’re able to investigate them at closer inspection in a systematic way. We already think everything is connected in some way or another, that doesn’t take away the incentive to take a closer look at what appears to distinguish particular processes from each other, how the function, and how they relate to each other.

All that is needed to begin to understand the bridge between monist reality and dualistic interpretation is to witness for yourself how an apparently dualised reality is constantly being created from a non-dual substrate.

I think here is where you muddle the waters. Private witnessing is merely a tiny aspect of it, and not necessarily that important in terms of being sure about what’s actually happening. It is by no means all that is needed to begin to understand… we already know that to be trivially true by simple analytical reasoning. What many of us want to know is the exact physical mechanism.

[Nick227]

…only phenomenal representations? A more detailed approach would of course include the investigation of what exactly creates those representations, i.e. distinguishing what exactly is happening in the brain, where, and when.

Yes, we can do that and it's all great. But still we are only dealing with representations and machine-acquired data. This must always be borne in mind.

That would be where the “self” comes into actuality from a private point of view.

That is certainly where the data points to.

Don’t be silly. It is those specific processes that are under investigation. What you coin as illusion is trivially true in the broader context, like almost everything that deep down only appears to be independent.


It's trivially true in the broader context but also directly true if you want to look. Simply examining who or what you are and what your world would look like, in the absence of thinking, is of immense value imo.


Yes, I think I pointed this out to you some time ago already. That is why we first try to recognize what seem to be explicit patterns, distinguishable from each other, so that we’re able to investigate them at closer inspection in a systematic way. We already think everything is connected in some way or another, that doesn’t take away the incentive to take a closer look at what appears to distinguish particular processes from each other, how the function, and how they relate to each other.

I think here is where you muddle the waters. Private witnessing is merely a tiny aspect of it, and not necessarily that important in terms of being sure about what’s actually happening. It is by no means all that is needed to begin to understand… we already know that to be trivially true by simple analytical reasoning. What many of us want to know is the exact physical mechanism.

Well, simple observation will reveal that the primary mechanism is thinking. I consider what you write above to be completely valid, but it also reveals the crazy side of science. Chained by identification, the brain is condemned to try and understand its apparent separation through thought-based objective analysis. Yet it is only thinking that is creating most of the separation in the first place and this can be simply observed by just a small child with reduced identification! It can be seen plain as daylight in an instant.

Scientists struggle to understand selfhood. Ramachandran is I think quoted as calling it the most complex issue he faces. I think his and other work is commendable and shines a lot of light on exciting neurological processes. But it is also completely true that the answer has been staring him in the face since the day he was born. He has simply been distracted by identification with thought.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

Well, that might be your vision of materialism. I don't share it. To me your position is akin to a religious type claiming that "the fact that God exists is hard, objective evidence for God."

You clearly have no idea what I am talking about. Let me make it as easy as possible.

1) We are talking about "I."
2) Thus "I" exists in some form, namely as a thought in the mind of you and I.
3) Every thought of a human is a material process.
4) Thus "I" is a material process.

Everyone else here is talking about the reference "I". You seem to be talking about the referrent. Why? We have made it clear that we are not talking about the referrent, yet you keep switching back to it. There is a huge difference. Learn computer science.


So, according to your vision of materialism Father Christmas exists?


Absolutely. As a reference. The referrent does not exist in objective reality. But that has no impact on the existence of the reference. Learn computer science.

But is there really a sensation of "I?" I think I should not have used the word "sensation" before. There is a sensation of the body but "I" is not really a sensation. My mistake, apologies. Perhaps it would be better to use the phrase "sense of I", or "notion of I." There is a body map. There is behaviour derived from mirroring and attenting. There are thoughts. These processes go on and they maintain the sense of selfhood, but this does not mean that selfhood is real beyond this sense.

It doesn't need to be real beyond that.

Now you are, to my mind, instituting duality at an even deeper level. It's quite needless to do this imo. You are, I submit, doing just what Descartes did. He assumed that "I" must be present. He took it as a given. The pattern of identification in Descartes' brain caused this to happen so he could not see around his preconception.

I am a computer scientist. My job is writing A.I. If anyone in the human population understood the material mechanisms of consciousness, it would be someone like me. I am very different from Descartes.

I am explaining to you that the existence of a reference is trivially true. The existence of a referrent in objective reality that matches a systems notion of that reference is not trivially true, or even true in general -- its truth depends on the system's definition.

If we can even think of "I", a reference exists. This does not imply that there is a real referrent that matches what we think of as "I," -- the existence of that depends on your definition of "I."

For materialists like lupus, pixy, paul, robin, and me (sorry to all who got left out there), we have altered our definition of "I" such that a referrent that matches our definition exists in objective reality.

Note that the source of your inability to accept this is the fact that you refuse to understand that other people have different definitions than you.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, simple observation will reveal that the primary mechanism is thinking. I consider what you write above to be completely valid, but it also reveals the crazy side of science. Chained by identification, the brain is condemned to try and understand its apparent separation through thought-based objective analysis. Yet it is only thinking that is creating most of the separation in the first place and this can be simply observed by just a small child with reduced identification! It can be seen plain as daylight in an instant.

…and thinking is the result of, and corresponds to, some underlying processes. What exactly corresponds to self-reference would be the question. What model is accurate enough to explain what we from a first-person perspective experience? How much is simply learned (what are the factors involved) and how much of a propensity is there for such manifestation (what are the exact mechanisms)? Those are questions we aspire to illuminate.

Thoughts are not “some-things” that simply float around in the head like clouds on the sky; at least I think there’s a much more tangible process that at least in principle can be subjugated to an accurate and systematic study. You seem to be treating thinking as a kind of residual category where you simply dump all the questions into, by which you therefore only can pretend to know what’s going on – “oh yes, it must, surely it must, be the result of thinking.”

It could perhaps be satisfying to a person who’s sitting on the fence struggling with whether he should believe in an immaterial soul or not. But besides for hunting homunculi, it’s not very helpful.

Scientists struggle to understand selfhood. Ramachandran is I think quoted as calling it the most complex issue he faces. I think his and other work is commendable and shines a lot of light on exciting neurological processes. But it is also completely true that the answer has been staring him in the face since the day he was born. He has simply been distracted by identification with thought.

This is a perfect example of where the naiveté of your position leads you: You assume selfhood is answered by throwing in two interdependent independent variables into the soup – ‘identification’ and ‘thought’ – and thus you think you have a final satisfying answer. Perhaps you have – this being the philosophy board and all – but in my opinion, you have barely highlighted the zone where personal psychology and philosophy must handle the baton to science (to find out what’s actually going on).

Sure it is a difficult problem for Ramachandran et.al., precisely because the “answer” has not been staring him in the face, but because, even if you are correct, ‘identification’ and ‘thought’ etc. still implies physical processes that must also be empirically described and modeled into a coherent explanation.

[Nick227]

…and thinking is the result of, and corresponds to, some underlying processes. What exactly corresponds to self-reference would be the question. What model is accurate enough to explain what we from a first-person perspective experience? How much is simply learned (what are the factors involved) and how much of a propensity is there for such manifestation (what are the exact mechanisms)? Those are questions we aspire to illuminate.

Yes.

Thoughts are not “some-things” that simply float around in the head like clouds on the sky;

Well, we don't know how thoughts are, or how thinking is, objectively. The "clouds in the sky" metaphor is often how this awareness of the transition from relatively thought-free awareness to more thought-filled awareness is frequently described. Of course, this descriptive process uses thoughts and indeed the intention to describe it, to share it, invokes thought.

at least I think there’s a much more tangible process that at least in principle can be subjugated to an accurate and systematic study. You seem to be treating thinking as a kind of residual category where you simply dump all the questions into, by which you therefore only can pretend to know what’s going on – “oh yes, it must, surely it must, be the result of thinking.”

Well, it does become clear, when identification begins to fall away, the immense role that thinking plays in our life. There is usually previously little realisation of the sheer extent to which thinking dominates activity. Generally it does stagger people because so much is based on thought, yet so much of it is taken for granted or ascribed to other factors. Thus, I do appreciate what you say when you say I am treating it like a residual category, but I have to ask whether you have personally become aware of the incredible extent to which thought dominates life?


This is a perfect example of where the naiveté of your position leads you: You assume selfhood is answered by throwing in two interdependent independent variables into the soup – ‘identification’ and ‘thought’ – and thus you think you have a final satisfying answer. Perhaps you have – this being the philosophy board and all – but in my opinion, you have barely highlighted the zone where personal psychology and philosophy must handle the baton to science (to find out what’s actually going on).

Sure it is a difficult problem for Ramachandran et.al., precisely because the “answer” has not been staring him in the face, but because, even if you are correct, ‘identification’ and ‘thought’ etc. still implies physical processes that must also be empirically described and modeled into a coherent explanation.

To me you are perfectly articulating the problems of a wholely objective mindset approach to the issue. The assumption is that it must be complex, that there must be a reason for all the zillions of thoughts expended trying to grasp what is going on, for all the directed attention. Objectivity is great, but when there is objectivity without awareness of just what objectivity actually is, of the assumptions it proceeds from, and of the immense role that thinking has in originally creating duality, then to me in this situation objectivity is little different from an addiction.

The objective mindset barricades itself in, and concludes that this must be the way. It tries to defend itself from what it perceives as attacks from other viewpoints using whatever it has to hand. But it cannot see that the whole dualistic issue that it is trying so hard to pin down and resolve is only arising with the process of thinking within the organism attempting to unravel it. This is why people laugh out loud when they start to get it. It's actually so simple people just slap their hands against their foreheads. But on reading this so the brain, if still identified with all the investment in objectivity it has appears to have made over the years, will invariably only go once again on the attack to try and refute the possibility of such a simplistic answer. It is pinned down by identification and has not the awareness to examine the possibility that it has been looking down the wrong path for so long time.

The objective pathway is fine. I salute Rama for his work and I am not being patronising when I say this. I mean it. It would be truly great to more and more unravel the neurological forces behind this experience of selfhood. But for those who wish it the answer is already there at a personal level.

Nick

[Nick227]

You clearly have no idea what I am talking about. Let me make it as easy as possible.

1) We are talking about "I."
2) Thus "I" exists in some form, namely as a thought in the mind of you and I.

Straight away you are assuming "I", RD. Might I suggest that if you are going to meaningfully examine this subject matter you are going to have find other terminology at the specific points where self-reinforcing assumptions could be made.


3) Every thought of a human is a material process.
4) Thus "I" is a material process.


Well, I prefer Dennett's view of the "I" as a "centre of narrative gravity." I think this starts to give a much clearer image - that of an apparent centre being created by coherent peripheral activity.


Everyone else here is talking about the reference "I".

Well, there is only me and Lupus and he doesn't seem to me to be so much considering the reference. I have to say that your near-constant reference to other people's viewpoints does somewhat inevitably lead me to conclude that actually you are not so sure yourself about what you're writing. This is totally fine but I think it would be better that you come out and say it, if it is so.

You seem to be talking about the referrent. Why? We have made it clear that we are not talking about the referrent, yet you keep switching back to it. There is a huge difference. Learn computer science.


I'm fine with considering the organism as a functioning whole embedded within an environment. I wouldn't be able to do much in life if I wasn't. But I submit that in a healthily inquisitive organism it is not normal to leave "I" as merely a reference. Inevitably one is interested - just what exactly is being referred to? Someone who is stuck at the level of behaviourism must only reply "You! You!" They have no choice. But I am happy to examine more deeply, and I don't think science would have proceeded so far without this attitude of investigation.


Absolutely. As a reference. The referrent does not exist in objective reality. But that has no impact on the existence of the reference.

Are you saying you do not exist in objective reality?



It doesn't need to be real beyond that.


Do your last two statements not demonstrate to you the problems with the behaviourist position? If it does not exist in objective reality, how come "it" suddenly has needs? You are caught between the two perspectives, RD, and it is good that you are, if you ask me, because without your natural inquisitiveness there would not be much dialogue here.



If we can even think of "I", a reference exists. This does not imply that there is a real referrent that matches what we think of as "I," -- the existence of that depends on your definition of "I."

To me, you're starting to sound pretty Idealist now. I find it quite exciting really.

Nick

[AWPrime]

How to objectively detect a 'I' of an organism is quite easy. A degree of I is necessary for planning and learning, therefore if the organism can plan or/and learn it has an 'I'.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, we don't know how thoughts are, or how thinking is, objectively. The "clouds in the sky" metaphor is often how this awareness of the transition from relatively thought-free awareness to more thought-filled awareness is frequently described. Of course, this descriptive process uses thoughts and indeed the intention to describe it, to share it, invokes thought.

Sure, using such a metaphor is all fine when describing the return from “la-la land”. Besides that, it’s not very helpful, but rather inane.

Well, it does become clear, when identification begins to fall away, the immense role that thinking plays in our life. There is usually previously little realisation of the sheer extent to which thinking dominates activity. Generally it does stagger people because so much is based on thought, yet so much of it is taken for granted or ascribed to other factors. Thus, I do appreciate what you say when you say I am treating it like a residual category, but I have to ask whether you have personally become aware of the incredible extent to which thought dominates life?

Yes. I also think you are making great fuss about perhaps insignificant issues. For some it might be earth shattering, for some it might not be that big of a deal at all. Generally we don’t consider acting upon the majority of our thoughts anyhow; there are also many thoughts we generally don’t ascribe identity to either.

You seem to be confusing a personal perspective with a scientific one, which is why you don’t seem to understand the requirements of what is taken to constitute a proper objective description and model of an area of investigation.

To me you are perfectly articulating the problems of a wholely objective mindset approach to the issue. The assumption is that it must be complex, that there must be a reason for all the zillions of thoughts expended trying to grasp what is going on, for all the directed attention.

Of course I’m articulating the objective approach here, that’s the only one which is any good in explaining stuff more reliably and in more detail.

Objectivity is great, but when there is objectivity without awareness of just what objectivity actually is, of the assumptions it proceeds from, and of the immense role that thinking has in originally creating duality, then to me in this situation objectivity is little different from an addiction.

You only come to this ridiculous conclusion by looking at objectivity from an immature point of view.

The objective mindset barricades itself in, and concludes that this must be the way. It tries to defend itself from what it perceives as attacks from other viewpoints using whatever it has to hand. But it cannot see that the whole dualistic issue that it is trying so hard to pin down and resolve is only arising with the process of thinking within the organism attempting to unravel it.

…and again, confusing what requirements are proper for different investigative perspectives is surprisingly immature here.

This is why people laugh out loud when they start to get it. It's actually so simple people just slap their hands against their foreheads. But on reading this so the brain, if still identified with all the investment in objectivity it has appears to have made over the years, will invariably only go once again on the attack to try and refute the possibility of such a simplistic answer. It is pinned down by identification and has not the awareness to examine the possibility that it has been looking down the wrong path for so long time.

…and again!

The objective pathway is fine. I salute Rama for his work and I am not being patronising when I say this. I mean it.

Look: you’re arguing from such a perspective that you couldn’t be patronizing even if you tried to (you would only look like Don Quixote).

It would be truly great to more and more unravel the neurological forces behind this experience of selfhood. But for those who wish it the answer is already there at a personal level.

...would be? That’s exactly what is taking place (among other things). I however prefer to leave the personal level to one’s own predilection and not claim it to be a universal resolution (simply because it is not).

[Nick227]

Yes. I also think you are making great fuss about perhaps insignificant issues. For some it might be earth shattering, for some it might not be that big of a deal at all. Generally we don’t consider acting upon the majority of our thoughts anyhow; there are also many thoughts we generally don’t ascribe identity to either.

Just to be clear, no one is ascribing identity to any thoughts. The act of identification creates the notion of a self which is acting. Whilst this act of identification is unconscious it persists.

You seem to be confusing a personal perspective with a scientific one, which is why you don’t seem to understand the requirements of what is taken to constitute a proper objective description and model of an area of investigation.

Neurology is all very well and fine. But neurology has yet to unravel selfhood. What frequently takes place prior to objective evaluation and testing is an assessment of the situation and the creation of a theory...

It can be seen that the action of identifying with thought creates the notion of a self that is doing the identifying. Because the identification is unconscious so the belief in this acting self persists. Thus in considering the scientific question of how a monist reality comes to appear so dualistic, or how free will seems to exist yet almost certainly does not, this model offers significant possibilities for comprehending the process. This is because both the elements in it - thinking and identification - appear to be neurological in nature.

The nature of identification intimates that it could well be a neurological process. It is clearly unconscious. It clearly induces a positive feeling in the organism and through this directs seeking behaviour. Thus, to my mind, it is reasonable to assume that one is looking for a dopamine-mediated process which incentivises the acting on certain types of thought. Furthermore, a basic grasp of psychology indicates that the specific thoughts it promotes are those which reflect emotional potencies not yet consciously realised.

In considering that emotions are, essentially, the executors of evolutionary logic one also has some beginnings to perhaps grasp how identification could have been favoured as a means to further maturation.

Seems an entirely reasonable theoretical model to me. Tell me what's wrong with it.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

Straight away you are assuming "I", RD. Might I suggest that if you are going to meaningfully examine this subject matter you are going to have find other terminology at the specific points where self-reinforcing assumptions could be made.

You obviously don't realize it, but the statement "you are assuming (the reference) "I" exists" is equivalent to "you are assuming the words of this sentence exist as references."

Of course I am assuming such a thing. Are you insane? Are you going to seriously take the stance that even references don't exist?

Well, I prefer Dennett's view of the "I" as a "centre of narrative gravity." I think this starts to give a much clearer image - that of an apparent centre being created by coherent peripheral activity.

So you agree that "I" is a reference, which references "centre of narrative gravity."

Well, there is only me and Lupus and he doesn't seem to me to be so much considering the reference.

Thats because you have no education in the requisite fields to understand what either lupus or I am talking about.

I have to say that your near-constant reference to other people's viewpoints does somewhat inevitably lead me to conclude that actually you are not so sure yourself about what you're writing. This is totally fine but I think it would be better that you come out and say it, if it is so.

In defense I reference the viewpoints of other intelligent forum members, who have never made a similar claim about me.

I'm fine with considering the organism as a functioning whole embedded within an environment. I wouldn't be able to do much in life if I wasn't. But I submit that in a healthily inquisitive organism it is not normal to leave "I" as merely a reference. Inevitably one is interested - just what exactly is being referred to? Someone who is stuck at the level of behaviourism must only reply "You! You!" They have no choice. But I am happy to examine more deeply, and I don't think science would have proceeded so far without this attitude of investigation.

I call ************ on this. You are not happy to examine. Otherwise you would be having a discussion. All you have been doing for an entire year, Nick, is preaching. Don't you see that?

This is how every communication with you ends up:

me -- "this is what I consider 'I', and here is the hard objective evidence for it"

you -- "no no no, that is not 'I', here is the definition I prefer ... now show me evidence for it!"

me -- "wtf"

Well I am just sick of you, Nick. All you are doing here, all you have been doing for a year, is pretending to talk about this issue so that you can forward your pet theory, whatever it is.


Are you saying you do not exist in objective reality?

No -- my referrent for "I" exists in objective space. My referrent for santa claus does not.

Do your last two statements not demonstrate to you the problems with the behaviourist position?

No.


To me, you're starting to sound pretty Idealist now. I find it quite exciting really.

Yes Nick.

Pointing out that santa claus may or may not exist in objective space depending on one's notion of santa claus is idealism.

[rocketdodger]

Seems an entirely reasonable theoretical model to me. Tell me what's wrong with it.
Nick

Learn computer science.

[Wowbagger]

The "Model of I" being "a reference to a center of narrative" seems to be much more useful for discussing the nature of conscious, right now. Until we know more about the empirical nature of consciousness, it is not necessary to assume that the existence of "I" is indicative of any special objective existence.

The existence of "I" could be nothing more than the emergent behavior of various otherwise-disparate systems. And one of the best, most complete, most accepted, and empirically respectable theories of the mind is based on this claim: Daniel Dennett's Multiple Drafts theory.

I suggest you read Susan Blackmore's Consciousness: An Introduction, for a good summary of this, and other related issues. (I would have suggested Dennett's own book, Consciousness Explained, but it is rather difficult to read.)

[nonbeliever]

Are we still arguing about whether science is invalidated by evolution?

[rocketdodger]

Until we know more about the empirical nature of consciousness, it is not necessary to assume that the existence of "I" is indicative of any special objective existence.

It is indicative of the objective existence of the system(s) experiencing the "I."

The existence of "I" could be nothing more than the emergent behavior of various otherwise-disparate systems. And one of the best, most complete, most accepted, and empirically respectable theories of the mind is based on this claim: Daniel Dennett's Multiple Drafts theory.

That isn't the issue.

The issue is that Nick doesn't believe it is valid for a system to reference itself, because there is no "self" to begin with. What he fails to grasp is that when we say "system S references itself" we just mean "system S references system S," not "system S references it's dualistic self that inhabits the apriori netherworld."

That is why I keep telling him to learn computer science -- he assumes that I, an A.I. programmer, am using terms with a dualist meaning, and when I explain to him that I am most definitely not he simply accuses me of not knowing the meaning of the very words I use. I don't think the discussion can move forward until he realizes that it is possible for words to have definitions other than, or in addition to, the definitions he thinks they have.

[rocketdodger]

Are we still arguing about whether science is invalidated by evolution?
Yes. Here is the argument in a nutshell:

1) Humans are the product of evolution, which means our consciousness is probably not what most people think it is.
2) Materialism asserts that our consciousness is completely material.
.
.
.
63) Incomprehensible mumbo jumbo
.
.
.
234) Therefore, the universe is nothing but a whole lot of material, and any narrower or more meaningful description we give to any part or behavior of it -- namely, the dichotomy we have of self vs. not self -- is merely an illusion.
235) Therefore, there is no such thing as objective vs. subjective (because self does not exist).
236) Since science relies on "objectivity," it is thus invalidated.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Seems an entirely reasonable theoretical model to me. Tell me what's wrong with it.

Well, the intention is much more rigorous than simply proclaiming objectivity to be an addiction, how objectivity is trying to protect “itself” or more nonsense like that.

Usually we do it the other way around thou; we let the data show the way; we split it into smaller chunks so that we can test hypothesizes, then we create models, and finally perhaps a whole theory. We generally don’t consider ontology to be a scientific question, and we certainly try to avoid much of the fuzziness introduced in higher chains of reasoning by which you then seem to legitimize following lower chains of reasoning.

What you have is a vaguely coherent collection of assumption. What you don’t have, and what I already pointed out, is a stringent way by which you could actually start embedding reliable protocols for testing your claims in regards to your speculation you take as already being a fact. You’re awfully close to simply begging the question.

[thesyntaxera]

Yes. Here is the argument in a nutshell:

1) Humans are the product of evolution, which means our consciousness is probably not what most people think it is.
2) Materialism asserts that our consciousness is completely material.
.
.
.
63) Incomprehensible mumbo jumbo
.
.
.
234) Therefore, the universe is nothing but a whole lot of material, and any narrower or more meaningful description we give to any part or behavior of it -- namely, the dichotomy we have of self vs. not self -- is merely an illusion.
235) Therefore, there is no such thing as objective vs. subjective (because self does not exist).
236) Since science relies on "objectivity," it is thus invalidated.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40520

Another way to break this down would be: humans are evolved, as a result of this evolution we are subjective. We subjectively assume selfhood without ever questioning it because our own existence above all things is one thing we are consistently provided evidence for. However, that does not make us contain an intrinsic self just the 'sense' of self. Because we have to rely on this sense of self to make our way through this world, and because this self is a fragile thing(as a good look throught DSM IV will show you) and subject to all kinds of changes it cannot be considered, ever, to be objective.

So we combine our 'selves' under the banner of materialism and science in order to make up for this inherent subjectivity in all of us and call the sum approximation of those efforts 'objectivity' and praise our 'selves' for creating such a clear and perfect vision of reality.

The problem is still that this clear picture of reality is based on collective subjective observations and are in no way absolute. They may be heavily tested, but the scientific truth is that they are consistently under revision, as they should be....for example, we all recognize the color red. Let's say for instance that the human race has a dramatic evolutionary change that takes the minority of those with color blindness (perhaps they see blue instead of red) and makes their genes that govern that part of their perception dominate across the species for some reason. Over time the majority of people no longer see red, but see blue instead. The minority of those who are color blind are actually made up of people who originally had the market cornered on the ability to perceive accurately, but now those same people are considered to be at a disadvantage when it comes to perception because the majority of observers see blue instead of red.

Essentially, there is no way to determine collectively a static materialistic perception of the world, and materialism as a philosophy should adopt the point of view that our world is a world of perceptions, and the most material thing about it is that our view of it is constantly changing, hence objectivity is a "behavior" or myth as Nick was saying in his OP.

Looking back at the OP I would say that I agree with everything, except the assumption that it undermines the value of science in any way. Science as a process has helped us to come to the point where we can realize that objectivity and materialism are not all they are cracked up to be. In the search for a clear picture of reality one may realize that the clearest picture is one that is indeterminate ultimately...hence the need for really rigorous science.

The only way I could see materialism devaluing science is when scientists latch too tightly to the notion that their preferred materialistic vision is the sole reality and not subject to change. Fortunately the scientific process has a way of weeding that out too.

[rocketdodger]

However, that does not make us contain an intrinsic self just the 'sense' of self.

But you are presuming that the only meaning of "self" is the dualistic one that Nick keeps talking about.

That isn't the only meaning.

As I keep saying, another meaning is the name given to system S's reference of system S by system S.

[Nick227]

It is indicative of the objective existence of the system(s) experiencing the "I."

But the issue for me is that "the system", if we're talking about a human system, only becomes bordered, on an intellectual level, through this action of identifying with thought. Without this act of unconscious identification the system loses its border, on an intellectual level. I say "on an intellectual level" because the human organism also has a somatosensory cortex, mirror neurons, and other functions which help to create selfhood on a sensational and behavioural level.

Thus, when one talks of a "self-referencing system", for me attention must be paid to the fact that the human system is largely being defined by this action of reference. Without the action of identification the borders of the system become considerably more loose. This is the point I am trying to make, because it seems to me that you are assuming the system is fully objectively defined prior to the action of reference.

In considering phenomenology, what creates the primary partition on an intellectual level - the sense of "I / not I" - is thinking and the action of identifying with thought. Without this activity phenomenology is rendered non-dual and experience ceases to exist for there is no longer anyone for experience to occur to.

I also urge you to read Blackmore and Dennett.

Nick

[Nick227]

What you have is a vaguely coherent collection of assumption. What you don’t have, and what I already pointed out, is a stringent way by which you could actually start embedding reliable protocols for testing your claims in regards to your speculation you take as already being a fact. You’re awfully close to simply begging the question.

I am not a neuroscientist. However I submit that the model does work intellectually. It matches experience and what we know, and to me this is no easy achievement given the degree of complexity commonly ascribed to understanding the phenomena of Self neurologically. Of course, it's not my own work. This model has been around in symbolic form for millenia. I'd put money on there existing a process which mediates identification with thought and that process being dopaminergic. For me it totally matches all data.

Nick

[Nick227]

But you are presuming that the only meaning of "self" is the dualistic one that Nick keeps talking about.

That isn't the only meaning.

As I keep saying, another meaning is the name given to system S's reference of system S by system S.

RD,

You are still assuming that "system S" exists as a clearly defined entity prior to reference. This is the issue for me.

Nick

[rocketdodger]

This is the point I am trying to make, because it seems to me that you are assuming the system is fully objectively defined prior to the action of reference.

That would imply that an infant would have the same sense of self as an adult.

Clearly, only an idiot would think such a thing. I am not an idiot. So No, I do not assume that.

[rocketdodger]

RD,

You are still assuming that "system S" exists as a clearly defined entity prior to reference. This is the issue for me.

Nick

No I am not assuming that at all.

The only place where S needs to be clearly defined is 1) the laws of whatever fabric S is part of (in this case our universe) 2) in the minds of whatever intelligent systems (E.G. humans) are considering S as part of a proof. S doesn't need to know anything at all about itself to begin with.

[Wowbagger]

It is indicative of the objective existence of the system(s) experiencing the "I." It is a handy quick-reference for communicating concepts among other humans. There may or may not be an actual objective existence there.

You really should read more Blackmore. And, maybe Dennett, though Dennett is more difficult to get through, sometimes. Blackmore is easier to swallow.

not "system S references it's dualistic self that inhabits the apriori netherworld." It doesn't sound, to me, like Nick is trying to sell any form of dualism. But, just to be sure, I'll ask him:
Nick, are you really trying to sell some form of dualism, in your arguments?

One can accept the idea that there is no real self to refer to, when speaking of "I"; and yet not be a dualist. In fact, the basic principals of that modern approach are very anti-dualism in nature. We are still talking about normally-understood matter, afterall.


That is why I keep telling him to learn computer science In computer science, it is good practice to break problems down into easily delineable functional units. It would be naive to assume natural life forms are obligated to do the same.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I am not a neuroscientist.

Very few of us are, and I think those on this board who indeed are, won’t come near our pathetic tries to make sense of these issues. Perhaps you’re doing the right thing in simply staying at a very abstract and conceptual level of interpretation?

Before you respond with saying that you are actually doing the very opposite, “that you are explaining it from a first-person perspective,” i.e. from an experiential point of view, keep in mind that there’s also a third-person perspective that can be utilized, which I generally try to do, and which is the reason I think they remain quite abstract and conceptual.

However I submit that the model does work intellectually. It matches experience and what we know, and to me this is no easy achievement given the degree of complexity commonly ascribed to understanding the phenomena of Self neurologically.

If you by intellectually here mean a third-person perspective and how the concepts you utilize are self-sustaining you could be right, but only on a trivial level. Yes, it can be said that without thoughts there’s no identification, and without identification there’s no sense of “I” (and thus no “I” in the tangible sense – like a rock). Or conversely: thinking happens, identification happens, and thus creates the sense/notion of “I”.

I however find that to be quite unsatisfying for a few simple reasons: 1) ‘thinking’ and ‘identification’ are such broad categories here that it’s hard to distinguish what’s excluded from them; 2) ‘identification’ seems to be simply thrown in there as an ad hoc bridge, i.e. we know there’s thinking and we know there’s the sense of “I”, thus there must be a case of ‘identification’ somewhere that “brings” these two notions together, hence ‘identification’ is thrown in as a saviour for solving the dilemma.

In short: There must be identification for the “I” to happen because, well, without identification it cannot happen. I find it a tad like begging the question. It doesn’t really reveal too much about what’s really happening, except, well, “identification” whatever that actually denotes to.

Of course, it's not my own work. This model has been around in symbolic form for millenia. I'd put money on there existing a process which mediates identification with thought and that process being dopaminergic. For me it totally matches all data.

While it’s commendable that ancient “sages” must have gone through extraordinary feats of introspection to confidently reaching such a conclusion, it is also quite a trivial conclusion after the invent of scientific reasoning and accumulation of systematic data. In fact it is pretty much presupposed. If we are to simply move on, we must eventually start breaking down concepts like thinking, identification and “I” into empirically solvable identifiable portions.

Thus we find some interesting suggestions: Like when Gazzangia proposes the existence of a “narrative self”, as one type of “self-system” in the left prefrontal cortex which seems to be responsible for what we call “self-talk”. The basis for his assumption has come through work with split brain patients and interhemispheric conflict (in Baars 1997). Furthermore, Baars alludes to the possibility of there also being a non-verbal self-system in the right hemisphere.

Baars also introduces some interesting dysfunctions: like anosognosia, where patients may reject their own limbs. So in this case they cannot identify with their own limbs even though their intellectual capacities are intact, thus there certainly are thoughts going on, and there certainly is thinking about identity and identification, yet there is inability to identify with certain parts of “oneself”.

So yes, in a very general way, there is ‘identification’ in the center of the problem again, but the simplicity of just referring to such a category is becoming increasingly unsatisfying.

Finally, Baars also suggest that the “observing self” could be a necessary framework for conscious experience, for which he says the following:

When the observing self is eclipsed by psychogenic fugue or multiple personality disorder, victims report ‘time loss’ — as if the eclipse in the observing self has also caused consciousness to disappear, for weeks or even months. The observing self seems to be a necessary framework for conscious experience. (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4, No 4, 1997). (See also update 2003: Science and Consciousness Review, October 2003)

These are just some hints as to why at least I don’t think it’s quite sufficient to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater when considering self-referential systems or simply “self-systems”.

[rocketdodger]

It is a handy quick-reference for communicating concepts among other humans. There may or may not be an actual objective existence there.

Wait... you are saying that there can be thought without a thinker? A physical process without a physical substrate? I don't think you are an idealist so you are clearly misunderstanding my meaning here.

I am simply asserting that the existence of an "I" reference implies the existence of some system which is the substrate of the reference, which can be said to be the system that is "experiencing" the "I." That seems to be just materialism 101 to me...

You really should read more Blackmore. And, maybe Dennett, though Dennett is more difficult to get through, sometimes. Blackmore is easier to swallow.

Their work has nothing to do with what I am talking about! I am talking about the basics of materialism here!

One can accept the idea that there is no real self to refer to, when speaking of "I"; and yet not be a dualist. In fact, the basic principals of that modern approach are very anti-dualism in nature. We are still talking about normally-understood matter, afterall.

I didn't say anything about being a dualist. I said that to think the only definition of "self" is the dualistic one is dualistic thinking.

The definition of "self" that I use, or my notion of self, is purely materialistic at this point, and it would be absurd to think it is any less "real" than the rest of the objective universe.

If my notion of self is something along the lines of "the entity that is writing this sentence" then how could it not be real? The sentence is clearly real, as real as anything else. So what wrote it? A ghost?

In computer science, it is good practice to break problems down into easily delineable functional units. It would be naive to assume natural life forms are obligated to do the same.

Do you think that single neurons by themselves are responsible for entire thoughts?

[thesyntaxera]

But you are presuming that the only meaning of "self" is the dualistic one that Nick keeps talking about.

That isn't the only meaning.

As I keep saying, another meaning is the name given to system S's reference of system S by system S.

And yet another meaning is that there just is no self. If selfhood is an emergent concept based in consciousness then the self is just a construct, or side effect of our awareness. Some animals recognize themselves in a mirror and some do not. We fortunately do, and it's proven quite useful.

[Wowbagger]

Wait... you are saying that there can be thought without a thinker? Unlikely to happen. I'm just pointing out that some models of "I" are better than others, at allowing us to understand ourselves.

A physical process without a physical substrate? That physical substrate changes more often than you realize the material that is "You", right now, won't be "You" for very long. But, "You" will still exist as the emergent behavior of whatever material you are at that moment.

This is also materialistic. It just models the emergent system, instead of the underlying system.

Do you think that single neurons by themselves are responsible for entire thoughts?It depends on the thought. But, most of the time, I would say no. Since most thoughts run through many different neurons, and could be influenced by each one, the chances of a single neuron being solely responsible for a thought (even if it had such an ability) is fairly slim.

I am sure you know about neural net algorithms, which are highly simplified models of how the brain supposedly works. The algorithm can afford to be simplified. The actual brain is not obligated to, so a lot more could be going on than we know about, right now. (though, I imagine we could learn.)

[rocketdodger]

It depends on the thought. But, most of the time, I would say no. Since most thoughts run through many different neurons, and could be influenced by each one, the chances of a single neuron being solely responsible for a thought (even if it had such an ability) is fairly slim.

I am sure you know about neural net algorithms, which are highly simplified models of how the brain supposedly works. The algorithm can afford to be simplified. The actual brain is not obligated to, so a lot more could be going on than we know about, right now. (though, I imagine we could learn.)

My point in asking that was to demonstrate that the building blocks of the brain are themselves "easily delineable functional units," which are in turn composed smaller and simpler sub-units, etc, and thus no, it would not be naive to assume natural life forms are obligated to do the same.

Natural life forms are just so much more complex than any of our software it seems as if they are qualitatively different.

[PixyMisa]

But you don't need to think to eat. Animals without any known capacity to think manage to nourish themselves. They develop the instinct.
Really?

What animals might that be?