<snip>
but subjective experiences are an actual reality! you're using them now! therefore people are discussing them! there's no conspiracy! vanzandtfan's an atheist who's interested in them.....unless you think vanzandtfan thinks god put them there.
Richard Dawkins one of the most die hard naturalist is intrested in them - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0I4pmTvdiw
<snip>
Well, as Dawkins says, you can never know what is going on in someone else's head
I'm not surprised Dawkins is interested in them. It's an interesting subject. I wonder if he thinks they're an exception to the physicality of the universe though?
Well, as Dawkins says, you can never know what is going on in someone else's head
I'm not surprised Dawkins is interested in them. It's an interesting subject. I wonder if he thinks they're an exception to the physicality of the universe though?
I'm not suggesting he is! but you can see he's struggling to define them materialistically and therefore doesn't - ie- "what makes the red, what makes the smell of onions, what makes the phy....er.....the subjective sensations going on in my head...":D
I agree that subective is a way of perceiving the world that is personal. The problem with the word 'objective' is: how do we determine what 'really exists.' That is where most debates occur, because, as you say, objective is not so obective, and is limited to the tools available at the time to explore "what really exists."
I view the boundaries of the subjective and objective world as fluid, however. If we have a symbolic dream, we can argue it came totally from internal forces and is subjective, or we can say it was influenced by objective forces (external energies). In addition we influence the objective world by our fantasies, expectations and projections; that is, we assist in creating the objective world.
I thought bluntbob was talking about non-physical realities, if I read correctly. That is a whole different area of perception, rather fascinating.
There is where we differ. Being subjective is just what we do. The universe as far as I have observed is a real place; I see no evidence to contradict that and even if I am wrong despite the available evidence (it is possible I am wrong albeit highly unlikely IMO ) I see nothing to be gained from assuming it is not real.
I do however agree that it is not always easy to be certain what is real and what is the real explanation for anything but I don't think it is anything like as difficult as is sometimes suggested.
Most people, whatever they may say about not believing in a definitive reality place their confidence in their perceptions of one on a daily basis and it seems to work.
I think the ability to tell truth from fantasy is fairly important ingredient in both functioning on a daily basis and in appreciating things that make use of fantasy such as art. If you don't know what imagination really is you cannot appreciate how amazing it is.
I also agree I too think bob is talking about non-physical realities but again I could be wrong.
I'm not suggesting he is! but you can see he's struggling to define them materialistically and therefore doesn't - ie- "what makes the red, what makes the smell of onions, what makes the phy....er.....the subjective sensations going on in my head...":D
But we don't ascribe non-physical or non-scientific explanations to everything just because we have not managed to understand them yet do we?
They are a perception, a view, it doesn't make it a reality at all. People can be hugely subjective and massively wrong.
Yes people experience things, many different things.
We have:-
Sensory input of data, from multiple vantge points,
Individual physical & mental conditions
Exposure levels
Levels of previous experience
Levels of similar previous experience
Validity of previous experience - data (age & applicability)
(and I'm sure there are others but just a few off the top of my head)
Many things that can draw us to reach the wrong conclusions about many things, that is the point. We are ultimately fallible and thats what science reflects.
The argument that somehow subjective experience is some kind of amazing unnecessary function, or perhaps even a design is ridiculous - Its the by product of variable data in, variable data out.
They are a perception, a view, it doesn't make it a reality at all. People can be hugely subjective and massively wrong.
Yes people experience things, many different things.
We have:-
Sensory input of data, from multiple vantge points,
Individual physical & mental conditions
Exposure levels
Levels of previous experience
Levels of similar previous experience
Validity of previous experience - data (age & applicability)
(and I'm sure there are others but just a few off the top of my head)
Many things that can draw us to reach the wrong conclusions about many things, that is the point. We are ultimately fallible and thats what science reflects.
The argument that somehow subjective experience is some kind of amazing unnecessary function, or perhaps even a design is ridiculous - Its the by product of variable data in, variable data out.
a reality as in subjective experiences exist. You're talking about a subjective point of view.
Blimey people seem to be really struggling with this!
Richard, when we talk about subjective in the philosophical sense we don't mean subjective in the, for example, the journalistic sense. In the first sense, subjective means the internal world of awareness, tastes, smells etc. We don't mean that there is some kind of personal bias.
The second definition may follow from the first, but they are different things
EDIT; Reading back up, it looks like the distnction was already made, yet here we are again
Okay, lets all agree that where we talke about subjective we mean internal awareness, not subjective bias?
Richard, when we talk about subjective in the philosophical sense we don't mean subjective in the, for example, the journalistic sense. In the first sense, subjective means the internal world of awareness, tastes, smells etc. We don't mean that there is some kind of personal bias.
The second definition may follow from the first, but they are different things
EDIT; Reading back up, it looks like the distnction was already made, yet here we are again
Okay, lets all agree that where we talke about subjective we mean internal awareness, not subjective bias?
Subjective is used in philosophy in the same sense as I have been using it. Well assuming you regard Kierkegaard as a philosopher.
He deals with subjective and objective truth. Subjective truth being a belief in something that cannot be verified such as God
Then there is objectivism and subjectivism which is again about different kinds of claims or judgements. Objective ones and subjective ones. These are both made in our minds obviously not just the subjective ones.
Oxford Companion to Philosophy; p.631 Ardon Lyon
No doubt there is support for your interpretation as well.
No problem; when I said "this one exception to the physicality of the universe" I was observing how strange I found that it was regarded as an exception. I was not stating that I regarded it as an exception as I think you must have somehow read. Quite the opposite.
I don't to be honest see how anyone reading what I said;
"How strange, and yet really how predictable that humans decide that only something they do has a unique status. How revealing that this one exception to the physicality of the universe is granted to our own thoughts"
Could read it as concurring with the idea that our minds have some unique status fundamentally different from the rest of the physical universe. If it is not clear, let me make it clear; I am attacking the idea.
I understood your quote as meaning - humans "deciding" that subjective experiences were "unique" to them. Where as you meant it as - subjective experiences not being "unique" at all and obviously (in your mind) as physically explainable as everything else.
.....Although I'm not sure why you "don't honestly see" how it could be read any other way because I detailed out what I thought you meant in previous posts.
No conspiracy, a mistake was made and an apology is sincerly given.
Now perhaps we can debate what I actually say and think, that would be much more interesting than arguing about what I have not said about the intellectual capacities of toasters.
Well it's not like I've avoided anything regarding this topic! What you've said and thought has been debated at length upside down and sideways over the last few pages with explainaitions as to why they can't be defined as physical. However so far all you've offered as your rebuttal is that they're the result of physical processes and and therefore physical .... Yet you've been unable to explain the experiences themselves physically.
If you believe them as physical then give explainations as to why subjective experiences should be accepted as physical entities and not just linked to physical entities.
Subjective is used in philosophy in the same sense as I have been using it. Well assuming you regard Kierkegaard as a philosopher.
He deals with subjective and objective truth. Subjective truth being a belief in something that cannot be verified such as God
Then there is objectivism and subjectivism which is again about different kinds of claims or judgements. Objective ones and subjective ones. These are both made in our minds obviously not just the subjective ones.
Oxford Companion to Philosophy; p.631 Ardon Lyon
No doubt there is support for your interpretation as well.
Well the argument of "subjective experiences" (ie - smell, colour, sensations etc) is what we've been discussing over the last few pages so i'm not sure why or how your interpretations have now become confused! Sure awareness & subjectivity overall is just as difficult to explain as the individual sensations themselves but subjective belief in god? Subjective claims and judgements? Is that what we've been talking about?
hope you enjoyed Christmas Richard!:)
I understood your quote as meaning - humans "deciding" that subjective experiences were "unique" to them. Where as you meant it as - subjective experiences not being "unique" at all and obviously (in your mind) as physically explainable as everything else.
.....Although I'm not sure why you "don't honestly see" how it could be read any other way because I detailed out what I thought you meant in previous posts.
No conspiracy, a mistake was made and an apology is sincerly given.
Well it's not like I've avoided anything regarding this topic! What you've said and thought has been debated at length upside down and sideways over the last few pages with explainaitions as to why they can't be defined as physical. However so far all you've offered as your rebuttal is that they're the result of physical processes and and therefore physical .... Yet you've been unable to explain the experiences themselves physically.
If you believe them as physical then give explainations as to why subjective experiences should be accepted as physical entities and not just linked to physical entities.
Thanks for the apology but it is I think just as I have said before that we are often using words very differently.:)
Anyway back to the debate; If you can provide an example of anything in the Universe that is not physical then it would provide some justification to ask me why I think experience (or mental activity of any kind) is not physical* in nature.
*by physical I am not of course just referring to solid objects but to anything that can be studied or identified by physical sciences i.e. “far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.
The ontology of physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc”.
If you can provide another example of anything that does not belong in this physical universe then it would make sense to ask me why I think the mind or experience etc does not have a physical existence. From the perspective of my ontology, and I really don’t mean this dismissively, asking me why I don’t think experience can be other than physical is as valid a question as asking me to show that they are not magic.
So I can but return the question; why do you think that alone of all phenomena, experience, thought, etc exists in some non-physical state, because nothing else does. I think the onus is on you to make this special case not for me to explain why I apply the same logic to the mind and awareness etc that I (and the physical sciences) apply to everything else.
I hope you enjoyed Christmas as well bob I had a 'great' (viewed subjectively of course:D) time, thank you.
I wouldn't say that I'm Athiest more along the lines of Agnostic... if there is something out there then fair play but until then I'm thinking for myself.
Thanks for the apology but it is I think just as I have said before that we are often using words very differently.:)
Anyway back to the debate; If you can provide an example of anything in the Universe that is not physical then it would provide some justification to ask me why I think experience (or mental activity of any kind) is not physical* in nature.
*by physical I am not of course just referring to solid objects but to anything that can be studied or identified by physical sciences i.e. “far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.
The ontology of physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc”.
If you can provide another example of anything that does not belong in this physical universe then it would make sense to ask me why I think the mind or experience etc does not have a physical existence. From the perspective of my ontology, and I really don’t mean this dismissively, asking me why I don’t think experience can be other than physical is as valid a question as asking me to show that they are not magic.
So I can but return the question; why do you think that alone of all phenomena, experience, thought, etc exists in some non-physical state, because nothing else does. I think the onus is on you to make this special case not for me to explain why I apply the same logic to the mind and awareness etc that I (and the physical sciences) apply to everything else.
I hope you enjoyed Christmas as well bob I had a 'great' (viewed subjectively of course:D) time, thank you.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Can we just explore the relationship between physicality and non-physical reality a little more?
Starting with thought. Thoughts are not composed of physical matter - they depend on physical matter for existence though. Without a brain we would not think. But even that is not enough. There is also a sense of self required for thought to exist - and I guess we would say that sense of self is also a function of the brain.
So we have a physical brain which gives rise to a sense of self and the perception of being able to think - and the idea that these 'thoughts' somehow belong to 'me'.
But what is a brain? Who is to say that our human physical brain is the only physical arrangement of matter that can give rise to the sense of self and the perception of thought?
We also know that within our bodies our ability to think can direct the physical processes that take place. Our thoughts cannot create existence from non-existence, but they can certainly direct the transformation of matter required to walk, eat, and by all accounts heal ourselves and create feelings of happiness, peace (and otherwise).
And so ...... no surprises in where I am going. We have the possibility of conscious beings on a colossal scale. Of course it requires science yet to be discovered - but not beyond the bounds of belief.
So a conscious entity - directing the transformation of matter via thought - perhaps very slowly by our standards - or using some form of internal 'synapse communication' not limited by the speed of light.
I don't think about religion at all. I didn't seek out any information about it, but I have had a lot of religious propaganda thrust in my face and what I've heard doesn't make any sense - it's all just a fairytale.
I accept that weak people may become unstable if they have nothing to believe in, or just blindly follow what their elders tell them. I don't tell my friends this though.
I don't think about religion at all. I didn't seek out any information about it, but I have had a lot of religious propaganda thrust in my face and what I've heard doesn't make any sense - it's all just a fairytale.
I accept that weak people may become unstable if they have nothing to believe in, or just blindly follow what their elders tell them. I don't tell my friends this though.
I think there is truth in what you say - but is it just that?
Isn't part of being human the ability to dream and conceive of realities beyond the immediate. Isn't that how we have developed to how we are? Which is not to say that religion is correct - but the ability to have these big dreams and let them influence our lives - that's not just weakness is it?
I don't think about religion at all. I didn't seek out any information about it, but I have had a lot of religious propaganda thrust in my face and what I've heard doesn't make any sense - it's all just a fairytale.
I accept that weak people may become unstable if they have nothing to believe in, or just blindly follow what their elders tell them. I don't tell my friends this though.
Can we just explore the relationship between physicality and non-physical reality a little more?
Starting with thought. Thoughts are not composed of physical matter - they depend on physical matter for existence though. Without a brain we would not think. But even that is not enough. There is also a sense of self required for thought to exist - and I guess we would say that sense of self is also a function of the brain.
So we have a physical brain which gives rise to a sense of self and the perception of being able to think - and the idea that these 'thoughts' somehow belong to 'me'.
But what is a brain? Who is to say that our human physical brain is the only physical arrangement of matter that can give rise to the sense of self and the perception of thought?
We also know that within our bodies our ability to think can direct the physical processes that take place. Our thoughts cannot create existence from non-existence, but they can certainly direct the transformation of matter required to walk, eat, and by all accounts heal ourselves and create feelings of happiness, peace (and otherwise).
And so ...... no surprises in where I am going. We have the possibility of conscious beings on a colossal scale. Of course it requires science yet to be discovered - but not beyond the bounds of belief.
So a conscious entity - directing the transformation of matter via thought - perhaps very slowly by our standards - or using some form of internal 'synapse communication' not limited by the speed of light.
You OK with this scenario Richard?
Where you go almost always surprises me droogie
Yes I do agree, very strongly, that the human brain is not the only possible 'mechanism' that could give rise to a sense of self. Indeed that possibility goes along with my opinion that there is nothing inherently different about the nature of brain from any other phenomena or organ. (Obviously brains human and animal are very different in structure from anything else we have observed I am not disputing that).
Isn't part of being human the ability to dream and conceive of realities beyond the immediate.
Of course. And that the dream seems better than what we have suggests what we have (achieved) is suboptimal. Believing there is already a perfect heaven available after death, for the faithful, serves no purpose in this age and vicinity.
Isn't that how we have developed to how we are?
Some part of it, yes.
Which is not to say that religion is correct - but the ability to have these big dreams and let them influence our lives - that's not just weakness is it?
It's not "to say" anything about religion at all and I can't see how you made that sudden leap (of faith?). Religion is almost the antithesis of "the ability to dream and conceive of realities beyond the immediate". Accepting, as it does, one version, adopted in a very different time, from the myriad realm of possibility. Adding power to it by claiming 'belief' is an essential part.
Not a weakness then. More a strength led astray. It must take strength of some kind to suspend disbelief.
Yes I do agree, very strongly, that the human brain is not the only possible 'mechanism' that could give rise to a sense of self. Indeed that possibility goes along with my opinion that there is nothing inherently different about the nature of brain from any other phenomena or organ. (Obviously brains human and animal are very different in structure from anything else we have observed I am not disputing that).
I will mull on the rest.
Happy New Year droogie
Yea!
I'll push it a bit more then:) Even more theoretical.
Let's entertain the idea of nested entities. I have a sense of identity based in my own body. But maybe I am also a part of one of these more colossal entities, capable of a sense of self and conscious of its own thought in its own right.
What would it mean for me to recognise that I, you and everyone else is also part of the wider entity - to realise that we are all part of that wider entity.
And would it be possible for me to experience the consciousness of the wider entity I am a part of? How would I do that? I guess as a minimum I would have to lose my own sense of identity in favour of a wider identity - one presumably shared with the many other forms of life that make up the big colossal entity.
So look again at some of the more mystical religious texts and look at what they say. Christianity - one must become as nothing to enter the kingdom. Buddhism - Nirvana is the annihilation of self.
Other things follow on from this train of thought - but I'm sure I've gone too far already:)
Comments
Well, as Dawkins says, you can never know what is going on in someone else's head
I'm not surprised Dawkins is interested in them. It's an interesting subject. I wonder if he thinks they're an exception to the physicality of the universe though?
There is where we differ. Being subjective is just what we do. The universe as far as I have observed is a real place; I see no evidence to contradict that and even if I am wrong despite the available evidence (it is possible I am wrong albeit highly unlikely IMO
I do however agree that it is not always easy to be certain what is real and what is the real explanation for anything but I don't think it is anything like as difficult as is sometimes suggested.
Most people, whatever they may say about not believing in a definitive reality place their confidence in their perceptions of one on a daily basis and it seems to work.
I think the ability to tell truth from fantasy is fairly important ingredient in both functioning on a daily basis and in appreciating things that make use of fantasy such as art. If you don't know what imagination really is you cannot appreciate how amazing it is.
I also agree I too think bob is talking about non-physical realities but again I could be wrong.
But we don't ascribe non-physical or non-scientific explanations to everything just because we have not managed to understand them yet do we?
Actually some people do of course.
Not in a nasty way, Dawkins or Hawking? Or did I miss the joke?
a reality as in subjective experiences exist. You're talking about a subjective point of view.
Blimey people seem to be really struggling with this!
Someone posted this earlier.
Fill your boots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Thanks;
That is interesting Dannett says
Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia. According to these, qualia are:
,,,
2. intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
So it appears; according to you link; that whatever they may be qualia are not subjective.
The second definition may follow from the first, but they are different things
EDIT; Reading back up, it looks like the distnction was already made, yet here we are again
Okay, lets all agree that where we talke about subjective we mean internal awareness, not subjective bias?
Subjective is used in philosophy in the same sense as I have been using it. Well assuming you regard Kierkegaard as a philosopher.
He deals with subjective and objective truth. Subjective truth being a belief in something that cannot be verified such as God
Kierkegaard; Concluding Unscientific Postscripts (1846 )
Then there is objectivism and subjectivism which is again about different kinds of claims or judgements. Objective ones and subjective ones. These are both made in our minds obviously not just the subjective ones.
Oxford Companion to Philosophy; p.631 Ardon Lyon
No doubt there is support for your interpretation as well.
So... Merry Christmas and I hope Santa was kind to y'all this year.
.....Although I'm not sure why you "don't honestly see" how it could be read any other way because I detailed out what I thought you meant in previous posts.
No conspiracy, a mistake was made and an apology is sincerly given.
Well it's not like I've avoided anything regarding this topic! What you've said and thought has been debated at length upside down and sideways over the last few pages with explainaitions as to why they can't be defined as physical. However so far all you've offered as your rebuttal is that they're the result of physical processes and and therefore physical .... Yet you've been unable to explain the experiences themselves physically.
If you believe them as physical then give explainations as to why subjective experiences should be accepted as physical entities and not just linked to physical entities.
Well the argument of "subjective experiences" (ie - smell, colour, sensations etc) is what we've been discussing over the last few pages so i'm not sure why or how your interpretations have now become confused!
Thanks for the apology but it is I think just as I have said before that we are often using words very differently.:)
Anyway back to the debate; If you can provide an example of anything in the Universe that is not physical then it would provide some justification to ask me why I think experience (or mental activity of any kind) is not physical* in nature.
*by physical I am not of course just referring to solid objects but to anything that can be studied or identified by physical sciences i.e.
“far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.
The ontology of physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
If you can provide another example of anything that does not belong in this physical universe then it would make sense to ask me why I think the mind or experience etc does not have a physical existence. From the perspective of my ontology, and I really don’t mean this dismissively, asking me why I don’t think experience can be other than physical is as valid a question as asking me to show that they are not magic.
So I can but return the question; why do you think that alone of all phenomena, experience, thought, etc exists in some non-physical state, because nothing else does. I think the onus is on you to make this special case not for me to explain why I apply the same logic to the mind and awareness etc that I (and the physical sciences) apply to everything else.
I hope you enjoyed Christmas as well bob I had a 'great' (viewed subjectively of course:D) time, thank you.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Can we just explore the relationship between physicality and non-physical reality a little more?
Starting with thought. Thoughts are not composed of physical matter - they depend on physical matter for existence though. Without a brain we would not think. But even that is not enough. There is also a sense of self required for thought to exist - and I guess we would say that sense of self is also a function of the brain.
So we have a physical brain which gives rise to a sense of self and the perception of being able to think - and the idea that these 'thoughts' somehow belong to 'me'.
But what is a brain? Who is to say that our human physical brain is the only physical arrangement of matter that can give rise to the sense of self and the perception of thought?
We also know that within our bodies our ability to think can direct the physical processes that take place. Our thoughts cannot create existence from non-existence, but they can certainly direct the transformation of matter required to walk, eat, and by all accounts heal ourselves and create feelings of happiness, peace (and otherwise).
And so ...... no surprises in where I am going. We have the possibility of conscious beings on a colossal scale. Of course it requires science yet to be discovered - but not beyond the bounds of belief.
So a conscious entity - directing the transformation of matter via thought - perhaps very slowly by our standards - or using some form of internal 'synapse communication' not limited by the speed of light.
You OK with this scenario Richard?
I accept that weak people may become unstable if they have nothing to believe in, or just blindly follow what their elders tell them. I don't tell my friends this though.
I think there is truth in what you say - but is it just that?
Isn't part of being human the ability to dream and conceive of realities beyond the immediate. Isn't that how we have developed to how we are? Which is not to say that religion is correct - but the ability to have these big dreams and let them influence our lives - that's not just weakness is it?
doesn't that make you weak?
Where you go almost always surprises me droogie
Yes I do agree, very strongly, that the human brain is not the only possible 'mechanism' that could give rise to a sense of self. Indeed that possibility goes along with my opinion that there is nothing inherently different about the nature of brain from any other phenomena or organ. (Obviously brains human and animal are very different in structure from anything else we have observed I am not disputing that).
I will mull on the rest.
Happy New Year droogie
Perhaps just sensitive.
Not a weakness then. More a strength led astray. It must take strength of some kind to suspend disbelief.
Yea!
I'll push it a bit more then:) Even more theoretical.
Let's entertain the idea of nested entities. I have a sense of identity based in my own body. But maybe I am also a part of one of these more colossal entities, capable of a sense of self and conscious of its own thought in its own right.
What would it mean for me to recognise that I, you and everyone else is also part of the wider entity - to realise that we are all part of that wider entity.
And would it be possible for me to experience the consciousness of the wider entity I am a part of? How would I do that? I guess as a minimum I would have to lose my own sense of identity in favour of a wider identity - one presumably shared with the many other forms of life that make up the big colossal entity.
So look again at some of the more mystical religious texts and look at what they say. Christianity - one must become as nothing to enter the kingdom. Buddhism - Nirvana is the annihilation of self.
Other things follow on from this train of thought - but I'm sure I've gone too far already:)