Interesting stuff. Is this just a symantics argument? No one can deny that experience is subjective but what science endeavors to know is that objective world that makes our subjective reality reliable. I am not yet convinced that a paradigm shift of the kind you begin to outline is needed. I'll keep watching though. :-)
I agree with what you are saying here up to a point: All experiences are subjective. All subjective experiences lack evidence of objectivity. However, lack of evidence is not proof of non-objectivity. I believe that this places the old physical paradigm in a bad spot though, there is infinitely more evidence for subjective phenomena rather than objective, traditional understood, physical phenomena.
Nice, interesting idea, but your final conclusion is non-sequitur.
Essentially you are suggesting the old idea that reality is a figment of our imagination (cf: reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol) which though is thought provoking is ultimately nonsense.
I like the way the viewer gets to see what is behind you as you talk of the concept of the non-existence of a physical world and the primacy of subjective perception.
Great piece by the way. If I remember correctly I think it was Berkeley who proposed ideas very similar to what you propose.
Not only is consciousness an emergent property but it must be aiding the system of the brain. I'm sure there could exist some kind of brain in a monkey which would have the monkey constantly aware of its breathing. But because awareness of breathing haven't helped spreading the genes this kind of mind and other similar haven't been selected. Since animals happen to be more aware of predators, pray and mates, consciousness evolved cause it has causal implications ultimately good for the genes.
Very interesting presentation. Consciousness as an emergent property of certain physical states is a practical enough paradigm for scientific purposes, but is hardly philosophically satisfactory.
Would it be correct to see 'physical objectivity' as embedded within 'physical subjectivity', rather than opposed to it?
If so, then the paradigm shift is an expansion of perspective, within which one can find the old paradigm, similar to how you can find Newton's gravity within general relativity.
You say "of course there is an 'objective' universe without experience, but nothing physical." Isn't it that there is a physical universe (IOW an all-encompassing field where energy is swirling/transforming)and the 'objectification' is the part that is held only within experience (ie drawing a 'line' around the blender and presupposing it is somehow separate from the physical field around it)?
So in essence your saying that if there are no subjects to experience an independent objective universe then it doesn't exist? Or it exists as some type of potential? So if physical objectivity doesn't exist indepedent of an observer than what would it be prior to an experience of it?
Iron as an element is heavier than water. If you throw a piece of iron into a lake it'll sink. If you build a complex system from the iron, a ship that displaces water, than an emergent property occurs, it floats. The property of floating of the complex system is not an innate property of the iron that its composed of. Complex systems far from equilibrium self-organize and none of the parts take a guiding hand in the organization.
Spiritual, you'd do better actually reading about the science of emergent properties and complex systems instead of jumping to conclusions from something you read on wikipedia.
I doubt it. You've already entangled yourself in some convoluted Kantian argument about why emergence occurs when it is attributed to the behavior of the parts.
Come and give an argument, post a video, or at least elaborate in some way. If you don't I take it you either don't have an argument or, granting you do have one,you're pretty cowardly not to put it out there.
You mean like science tells us that light reflects off a PHYSICAL object outside ourselves and to our eyes and that's how we form a phantasm of the image in our brain and it is immediate and intitive not moment by moment?
A friend once drugged me and dragged me into a room in their house, blindfolded & tied me. When I woke up, the wind was blowing and I could sense that distinctive forest smell, I felt the leaves on the ground. But as you know he had faked everything with air, leaves & a scent.
Subjectively I was in a forest, objectively in a room. They unmasked me, I saw the objective truth of my situation.
Interesting stuff. Is this just a symantics argument? No one can deny that experience is subjective but what science endeavors to know is that objective world that makes our subjective reality reliable. I am not yet convinced that a paradigm shift of the kind you begin to outline is needed. I'll keep watching though. :-)
Lelldoren71 1 year ago
Hi Mike. This is good thought provoking material. I'm subscribing to your channel. Thank you. Tom (45) in Gilroy, CA, USA.
NeoPsiTom 2 years ago
I agree with what you are saying here up to a point: All experiences are subjective. All subjective experiences lack evidence of objectivity. However, lack of evidence is not proof of non-objectivity. I believe that this places the old physical paradigm in a bad spot though, there is infinitely more evidence for subjective phenomena rather than objective, traditional understood, physical phenomena.
nickmotzkus 2 years ago
Nice, interesting idea, but your final conclusion is non-sequitur.
Essentially you are suggesting the old idea that reality is a figment of our imagination (cf: reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol) which though is thought provoking is ultimately nonsense.
IqbalHamid 2 years ago
I like the way the viewer gets to see what is behind you as you talk of the concept of the non-existence of a physical world and the primacy of subjective perception.
Great piece by the way. If I remember correctly I think it was Berkeley who proposed ideas very similar to what you propose.
veritashero68 3 years ago
Not only is consciousness an emergent property but it must be aiding the system of the brain. I'm sure there could exist some kind of brain in a monkey which would have the monkey constantly aware of its breathing. But because awareness of breathing haven't helped spreading the genes this kind of mind and other similar haven't been selected. Since animals happen to be more aware of predators, pray and mates, consciousness evolved cause it has causal implications ultimately good for the genes.
Censeo 3 years ago
Very interesting presentation. Consciousness as an emergent property of certain physical states is a practical enough paradigm for scientific purposes, but is hardly philosophically satisfactory.
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
Mind and life are not physical.
jahdallah 3 years ago
yes they are
greycloud24 3 years ago
yep
petexii 2 years ago
good ideas and good presentations. new subscriber, welcome to the matrix. M.
matrixcmitech 3 years ago
Would it be correct to see 'physical objectivity' as embedded within 'physical subjectivity', rather than opposed to it?
If so, then the paradigm shift is an expansion of perspective, within which one can find the old paradigm, similar to how you can find Newton's gravity within general relativity.
I would love to hear your thought on this.
demrings 3 years ago
Perhaps I am dense...but you seemed to digress from the topic of emergence. Also, I find your use of 'physical' and 'objective' to be flip-flopped.
normonics 3 years ago
You say "of course there is an 'objective' universe without experience, but nothing physical." Isn't it that there is a physical universe (IOW an all-encompassing field where energy is swirling/transforming)and the 'objectification' is the part that is held only within experience (ie drawing a 'line' around the blender and presupposing it is somehow separate from the physical field around it)?
normonics 3 years ago
So in essence your saying that if there are no subjects to experience an independent objective universe then it doesn't exist? Or it exists as some type of potential? So if physical objectivity doesn't exist indepedent of an observer than what would it be prior to an experience of it?
busheybushdawg 3 years ago
Iron as an element is heavier than water. If you throw a piece of iron into a lake it'll sink. If you build a complex system from the iron, a ship that displaces water, than an emergent property occurs, it floats. The property of floating of the complex system is not an innate property of the iron that its composed of. Complex systems far from equilibrium self-organize and none of the parts take a guiding hand in the organization.
jgillevet 3 years ago
This guy has his head up his ass along with Dennett and all the other reductonist.
jgillevet 3 years ago
Is that an argument?
SpiritualAtheist 3 years ago
Spiritual, you'd do better actually reading about the science of emergent properties and complex systems instead of jumping to conclusions from something you read on wikipedia.
jgillevet 3 years ago
The Wikipedia definition of emergence is entirely consistent with other reputible sources. For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I invite you to keep watching. You might learn something new.
SpiritualAtheist 3 years ago
I doubt it. You've already entangled yourself in some convoluted Kantian argument about why emergence occurs when it is attributed to the behavior of the parts.
jgillevet 3 years ago
Come and give an argument, post a video, or at least elaborate in some way. If you don't I take it you either don't have an argument or, granting you do have one,you're pretty cowardly not to put it out there.
sssswwwsssss 3 years ago
An argument?
You mean like science tells us that light reflects off a PHYSICAL object outside ourselves and to our eyes and that's how we form a phantasm of the image in our brain and it is immediate and intitive not moment by moment?
jgillevet 3 years ago
No. Do you know what a philosophical argument comes to? (I'm not meaning to be overtly rude here)
By the way, do you know what Dennett's position is?
"This guy has his head up his ass along with Dennett and all the other reductonist"
SpiritualAtheist's position can be seen as opposing Dennett's position. What do you mean by your statement?
sssswwwsssss 3 years ago
I mean you have your head up your ass like sp.
jgillevet 3 years ago
So, I take it you don't know what a philosophical argument is.
sssswwwsssss 3 years ago
A friend once drugged me and dragged me into a room in their house, blindfolded & tied me. When I woke up, the wind was blowing and I could sense that distinctive forest smell, I felt the leaves on the ground. But as you know he had faked everything with air, leaves & a scent.
Subjectively I was in a forest, objectively in a room. They unmasked me, I saw the objective truth of my situation.
Zeitschen 3 years ago
When i form a league of superheroes, you are definitely in!!
cozmikzen 3 years ago
awesome, I wrote a paper a while back with some somewhat similar diagrams. I'm going to post a response.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Thanks! I look forward to your response.
SpiritualAtheist 3 years ago