Re: Subjectivity and Objectivity + the problem of psychology

[euzanloz]

i cannot hear you with the computer turned right up! what is wrong with the sound?

[Israe5l]

Yes! Objective foundation in subjectivity.

Tho, I got to stick you with this word: ontology. Science wants to describe the world with generalized tools. Paradigms. Philosophers (if they are a good one) looks for certainty. They do not apologize for exceptions.

[zezt]

I found your video fascinating!! You explore the problem in a real, spontaneous way that really shows in the video.

HAve you had experience with psychedelics?

[cjcdrums]

"If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

No. It DOES creates waves of rapidly alternating local pressure changes that, when interpreted by the human barometer (ear), CREATE sound in the brain.

Sound, like all other sensory experiences, is not a direct link to what IS but merely samples a tiny fragment of reality naturally selected to be conducive to our survival in middle world.

[zezt]

yeah animals hear it!!!

[swaydam]

All we are capable of doing is telling what scientists have EXPERIENCED. When they look at light with certain tools, they have the experience of wavelengths. Its like saying that because when an eye(a visual tool) is created/grown(calibrated) correctly, and color is thus seen, that this proves the objectivity of color.

[GreenDragon23]

Wavelengths exist independent of their perception.

You seem to be trying to say the old "If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' -- Yes, a sound is produced regardless of whether it is heard or not.

Physical reality (gravity, color, electromagnetism, etc.) exists whether humans exist to perceive it or not.

Living organisms, and their tools, may subjectively perceive objective reality, but this does not make reality subjective.

[GreenDragon23]

Philosophical truths, and other purely human concepts, ARE truly subjective; they do not exist without the subject that generated them. Since human concepts do not exist without the subject that generated them (the humans), they are subjective systems; not objective fact. These do not exist in physical reality; merely within the consciousness of the subject.

[GreenDragon23]

Concepts such as morality, beauty, god, etc. are all concepts made by people; and they do not exist without the people that generated them (i.e. they are not part of physical reality).

[GreenDragon23]

Gravity is an objective fact (just like color). Different people and different tools may perceive it differently, but their perceptions do not change physical reality; nor is physical reality dependent on their perceptions. Objective reality (electromagnetism, gravity, etc.) exists whether or not there are any organisms or tools around to perceive it.

[GreenDragon23]

If reality did not exist (or existed differently) when it was not being perceived by an organism/tool, the world would be radically different + almost impossible to meaningfully predict the behavior of. Science, as we know it, would not exist, because it is based on the fact that reality is consistent regardless of perception.

[GreenDragon23]

Think about the scenario of a rock falling into a canyon. If gravity did not act on the rock in the same way when it was not being observed, as when it was being observed, then it could very well be impossible to tell where the rock fell from. Also think of how unpredictable the world would be if the strong nuclear force acted different when not being observed. Or think of biological evolution.

[GreenDragon23]

If reality was not consistent when we do not perceive it, then many technological innovations (computers, jets, etc.) would not exist today.

[listeningriffin]

GD, you describe the 'middle world' in which our senses are attuned for. modern physics along with some other scientific fields are running into dilemma which points to the possible un-actualness of some phenomenon. in everyday, you are pretty much right. but the fundamental basis for physical reality may not 'be' in some concrete way, reality may be more loose than our models can explain.

[GreenDragon23]

I agree that reality may theoretically be "more loose", but my point is still that reality exists independent of perception.

Modern physics has also shown us that most of reality exists outside of our senses. This backs up my point. Subjective perceptions are not needed for the existence of reality.

[swaydam]

Can you describe what a wavelength(or anything else) is like independent of any description of the experience? If you have never experienced anything but experience, why do you think there is anything else?

[GreenDragon23]

You cannot describe anything without using subjective human terms (language, morality, god, afterlife, etc. ARE ALL made up by people).

You make the mistake of thinking that subjective perceptions alter physical reality.

Experience may be subjective; but what is being experienced (such as gravity, color, etc.) exists regardless of your existence or perception.

What would make you think that you have some magical influence over reality merely through perception?

[GreenDragon23]

Semi-related question: Do you believe in the supernatural/mystical (such as astral projection, god, etc.)?

[ozjthomas]

Interesting. Personally, I don't think true objectivity is ever really possible. Even a simple statement like the tree is green is not experienced the same by all people. You might have someone who is colorblind, someone who is more attuned to colors and perceives the tree as yellow-green, and one who insists the tree is brown. Our senses can not be trusted, I think what we perceive is reality is simply what we need to know in order to survive.

[GreenDragon23]

The statement "the tree is green" can be evaluated objectively. The exact wavelengths of light being reflected can be objectively measured.

The physical world can be measured objectively; human concepts (such as 'good' and 'evil') cannot.

[swaydam]

The shape of the wavelength and its pattern will appear differently depending on the person and their tools. A "wavelength" is no different than a color, except that there is also shape.

[GreenDragon23]

If a wave is measured with well-calibrated tools, then a trained scientist can always tell what specific portion of the EM spectrum it is from by examining the energy of the wave (by looking at frequency or period of the wave).

Therefore, one can objectively determine the specific portion of the spectrum that the wave is.

In this way, we can objectively measure physical reality.

[swaydam]

Dear sir, Just because something is measured, does not mean that what is measured exists independent of experience. It could mean that the nature of our experience is very exact. To claim any knowledge of what is outside experience(subjectivity), is to claim knowledge to something which nobody has ever experienced, nor ever can by definition. What is green like independent of experience? Like a wavelength? Then what is a wavelength like independent of experience?

[cloudmonkeys]

interesting

[cloudmonkeys]

Where the answer is neither 'this' nor 'that', abandon the methods that require a 'this' or a 'that'.

Where the answer is 'this' or 'that' take up again your worthy tools!

[swaydam]

Reworded slightly "A cling exists in my room. Prove it for yourself by going in there and tapping it"

[swaydam]

Analogy. Every sense organ is like a drum stick. Its nature, plus the nature of the object it taps, creates a 3rd quality, a particular sound. All we experience is this 3rd quality. We assume that the sound we here when we tap things exists independently of the tapping. Someone says for example "Sound X exists in my room. Prove it for yourself by going in there and tapping it"

[cjcdrums]

This analogy makes sense to me ^_^

[4pples]

Have you converted into a mime?

[Peter7777t]

If we could extract and filter electrophysiological signals from various parts of the brain wouldn't that serve as a basis for objectifying a subjective experience? I remember studying visual evoked potentials which are voltage waveforms measured on the occipital cortex in reaction to a repeating visual stimulus. Since not everyone perceives the same object in the same way the evoked potentials vary from one person to the next when viewing the exact same scene.

[listeningriffin]

yea, i guess im just wondering if we could find a subjective experience which could be the same across all people.

[Peter7777t]

Well if you kept the subjective experience simple and devoid of emotional reaction the measured evoked potential waveform should share many of the same characteristics. For example seeing a wooden cube might yield roughly the same waveform from one person to the the next. Make it a sugar cube and people start to have emotional reactions about their experience with sugar cubes that causes the waveforms between individuals to vary.

[aneeley]

TURN THE VOLUME UP (please)

[psychtruth]

Hehe, you did read my email. Nice video.

[KAWPHEEisYUMMEE]

"We do not possess imagination enough to sense what we are missing" Jean Toomer