Neither one of them is a reality of any sort. They are only mental models of reality that we use to understand it.
Saving Theists a Ton of Grief
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
Crunchy Cat said:
Oh dear, perhaps I wasn't very clear! BG has correctly interpreted much of what I said. However, in brief:
1) Ultimately, the only reality we can "KNOW" is our experience (this is the basis of empiricism).
2) We deduce from our experience the existence of an objective reality.
3) The study of this "objective" reality (i.e. science) cannot give us "TRUTH". It can only give us a consensus model of the objective physical universe, which effectively enables us to make predictions.
4) In matters of ethics, culture, artistic and literary appreciation and religion, there is very little "objective" evidence for our beliefs, so the scientific method is not much use. Individual subjective experience is often the only source of "evidence" for our beliefs in such matters.
To illustrate what I mean, I quote William James, speaking as a psychologist about mystical experiences (Varieties of Religious Experience, Lecture 19):
Such experiences are often the most powerful and memorable in a person's life, and may drastically change their perspective on life for the better.
So in conclusion, you can reject someone's experience, or the meaning someone ascribes to their life as "deluded" or "false". However, it must be recognised that this is YOUR judgement/belief, based only on partial evidence. None of us have access to any absolute viewpoint from which to really judge, we only have our own beliefs with which to compare.
Last edited:
A profound insight of Rand's was that the intrinsicism-subjectivism dichotomy that has long dominated philosophy is a false alternative, that knowledge and values are neither intrinsic (in the object) nor subjective (in the mind), but a distinct, third alternative: objective.
This third alternative is the view that all knowledge and evaluation are in the relationship between consciousness and existence. While intrinsicism and subjectivism each correctly identify an important aspect of cognition, they can both be seen as focusing too narrowly on one side of this relationship, either neglecting the realm of consciousness or the realm of existence.
Intrinsicism is the view that the underlying form or essence of things, often called universals or concepts, is somewhere outside consciousness: either intrinsic to things themselves, or represented in some higher reality (as in Plato's Forms which we sense through earthly objects). Aspects such as redness, goodness, and badness are literally a part of things (or some associated higher reality), and entirely apart from consciousness.
An important implication of this is the manner, analogous to perception, by which we come to know a thing's essence or form. Just as percepts represent phenomena of reality apart from consciousness (outward appearance, etc.), concepts, too, represent phenomena of reality apart from consciousness (a thing's underlying essence or form). Neither is in itself subject to volition, yet both are available to us (given the right preparation, such as directing our gaze or reaching to touch in facilitating perception). So just as perception is automatic, so too the acquisition of concepts must be automatic, as they are already "out there", waiting to be had. No action or effort is required at the conceptual level -- one need only open their mental eyes and see; the mind is a passive receptacle waiting to be filled through revelation, "just knowing", the acceptance of authority, or inbuilt intuition.
At root, intrinsicism is the view that external reality is the determining factor in conception, while our consciousness contributes nothing essential.
Subjectivism seems to have risen as a reaction to intrinsicism: it is the view that knowledge comes from the subject (mind or consciousness), that concepts are the product of an active, inner process. Subjectivism holds that because a consciousness has a specific nature that defines and limits its operation, to understand things (including their underlying essence or form) we must process and interpret our experience of reality. Because our experience is thus processed, we may not come to know things as they really are, and further, because different minds are governed by different contexts, experiences, and preconceptions, two people need not come to the same conclusion -- there is no true and false, only difference of opinion.
One variant of subjectivism holds that there is no underlying essence of things for us to apprehend, that indeed, there is no reason to consider one aspect of a thing as more fundamental than another -- that metaphysically, there is only the (whole) thing, with each part or aspect no more important or fundamental than the next. Thus, any conceptual lines we may draw through it represent nothing more than our personal choices. Another variant goes further, with the view that there is no external reality at all -- everything is consciousness or its product, there is nothing external to the mind (in which case consciousness is the dominant factor in cognition without argument, as there is no existence to play a role of any sort).
In any variant, though, subjectivism is in essence the view that consciousness is the operative element in cognition, while existence is irrelevant (being unreal or unknowable).
Objectivism is a reaction to (and contrasted against) both intrinsicism and subjectivism: it holds that knowledge is the grasp of things through an active, reality-based process chosen by a mind -- that all knowledge and evaluation lies in the relationship between consciousness and existence. It recognizes the sound insights to be had from both intrinsicism and subjectivism, as well as avoids their shortcomings.
Observing the value in each, objectivity requires holding two sets of considerations in mind: (a) recognizing that reality exists independent of consciousness with the role of consciousness being the apprehension or identification of things, and (b) recognizing that like everything else, consciousness has a specific and volitional nature which necessitates the employment of particular methods and principles for its successful operation (e.g., observation, concepts, logic).
Applying this, objectivism faults intrinsicism for neglecting the fact that knowledge requires a knower, that values require a valuer -- knowledge is not automatically available to a consciousness and can only be obtained through certain processes. And it likewise faults subjectivism for neglecting the fact that existence exists and is what it is -- in any given context, only one answer can be true because reality cannot contradict itself.
Thus, "a volitional relationship between consciousness and existence is the essence of conceptual cognition"; "concepts reflect both fact and choice, both existents and man's perspective on them, both reality and human consciousness." [Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p.144, p.150]
http://www.ecosmos.com/writings/trichotomy.html
This third alternative is the view that all knowledge and evaluation are in the relationship between consciousness and existence. While intrinsicism and subjectivism each correctly identify an important aspect of cognition, they can both be seen as focusing too narrowly on one side of this relationship, either neglecting the realm of consciousness or the realm of existence.
Intrinsicism is the view that the underlying form or essence of things, often called universals or concepts, is somewhere outside consciousness: either intrinsic to things themselves, or represented in some higher reality (as in Plato's Forms which we sense through earthly objects). Aspects such as redness, goodness, and badness are literally a part of things (or some associated higher reality), and entirely apart from consciousness.
An important implication of this is the manner, analogous to perception, by which we come to know a thing's essence or form. Just as percepts represent phenomena of reality apart from consciousness (outward appearance, etc.), concepts, too, represent phenomena of reality apart from consciousness (a thing's underlying essence or form). Neither is in itself subject to volition, yet both are available to us (given the right preparation, such as directing our gaze or reaching to touch in facilitating perception). So just as perception is automatic, so too the acquisition of concepts must be automatic, as they are already "out there", waiting to be had. No action or effort is required at the conceptual level -- one need only open their mental eyes and see; the mind is a passive receptacle waiting to be filled through revelation, "just knowing", the acceptance of authority, or inbuilt intuition.
At root, intrinsicism is the view that external reality is the determining factor in conception, while our consciousness contributes nothing essential.
Subjectivism seems to have risen as a reaction to intrinsicism: it is the view that knowledge comes from the subject (mind or consciousness), that concepts are the product of an active, inner process. Subjectivism holds that because a consciousness has a specific nature that defines and limits its operation, to understand things (including their underlying essence or form) we must process and interpret our experience of reality. Because our experience is thus processed, we may not come to know things as they really are, and further, because different minds are governed by different contexts, experiences, and preconceptions, two people need not come to the same conclusion -- there is no true and false, only difference of opinion.
One variant of subjectivism holds that there is no underlying essence of things for us to apprehend, that indeed, there is no reason to consider one aspect of a thing as more fundamental than another -- that metaphysically, there is only the (whole) thing, with each part or aspect no more important or fundamental than the next. Thus, any conceptual lines we may draw through it represent nothing more than our personal choices. Another variant goes further, with the view that there is no external reality at all -- everything is consciousness or its product, there is nothing external to the mind (in which case consciousness is the dominant factor in cognition without argument, as there is no existence to play a role of any sort).
In any variant, though, subjectivism is in essence the view that consciousness is the operative element in cognition, while existence is irrelevant (being unreal or unknowable).
Objectivism is a reaction to (and contrasted against) both intrinsicism and subjectivism: it holds that knowledge is the grasp of things through an active, reality-based process chosen by a mind -- that all knowledge and evaluation lies in the relationship between consciousness and existence. It recognizes the sound insights to be had from both intrinsicism and subjectivism, as well as avoids their shortcomings.
Observing the value in each, objectivity requires holding two sets of considerations in mind: (a) recognizing that reality exists independent of consciousness with the role of consciousness being the apprehension or identification of things, and (b) recognizing that like everything else, consciousness has a specific and volitional nature which necessitates the employment of particular methods and principles for its successful operation (e.g., observation, concepts, logic).
Applying this, objectivism faults intrinsicism for neglecting the fact that knowledge requires a knower, that values require a valuer -- knowledge is not automatically available to a consciousness and can only be obtained through certain processes. And it likewise faults subjectivism for neglecting the fact that existence exists and is what it is -- in any given context, only one answer can be true because reality cannot contradict itself.
Thus, "a volitional relationship between consciousness and existence is the essence of conceptual cognition"; "concepts reflect both fact and choice, both existents and man's perspective on them, both reality and human consciousness." [Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p.144, p.150]
http://www.ecosmos.com/writings/trichotomy.html
Diogenes' Dog said:
Thanks for the clarification.
Diogenes' Dog said:
IMO, empiricism is good stuff, but this quote reflects a weakness. We are born loaded with various pieces of intrinsic knowledge which indicates an initial base seperate from experience (hence, the empirical 'blank-slate' of new human mind is falsified).
Diogenes' Dog said:
Quite correct.
Diogenes' Dog said:
I don't agree. The process of science has yielded many truths. For example:
* Dense mass slows time.
* 1 small particle can exist in multiple locations at once.
* Apple juice can be fermented.
Do we know all the details of the above? Nope... not at all. I am willing to bet that you don't know the schematic of all the circuits in your computer's processor, but it's true that it exists and processes electrons just fine (using your computer verifies it).
I know there are scientific theories that are far more nebulous. Inflationary theory (for example) is grounded in supportive evidence; however, there are many details which are aren't evidence backed (at least not yet). As a whole it's an approximation of truth and it's flexible so that it can be adapted with new information. Many theories fall into this category consequently.
Diogenes' Dog said:
I would probably remove ethics and artistic / literary appreciation from the list and would definately keep culture and religion together; otherwise, I agree that there is very little or no objective evidence with the associated beliefs of religion / culture.
Diogenes' Dog said:
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Some of the most powerful experiences on my life have been utterly hallucinatory. The impact they had on me is quite profound.
Diogenes' Dog said:
I think that people whom experience these things should share their experiences. It's a healthy exploration that will establish relationships between people.
There is a problem when people make assertions of truth based on these experiences. Bob had an experience where his perceptual pespective changed so that he was seeing and hearing things from above his body (looking downwards). He then recalls various details of what he saw. Bob then makes the assertion that souls exist and his left his body (an out of body experience).
Meanwhile, unknown to Bob, someone wielding science is able to reproduce an OOBE. Obvious critical details are planted in a room of someone experiencing an OOBE (things that can only be seen from an overhead perspective) and the experiencer is asked to recall the details. No experiencer is able to pick out the planted details. The experience is a hallucination and Bob goes around preaching OOBE as truth, or more specifically promoting ignorance.
This is a mild example. History is wrought with indoctrination, crusades, inquisitions, witch burning, suffering, extreme ignorance, retardation of science, etc... and its a result of belief.
In my opinion, this is an educational problem. People in general don't know how to have a fantastic experience without asserting it as objective truth; however, I will always hold people accountable to their claims. People also don't know or have the opportunity to distinguish between reality and hallucination. I've seen countless examples where people are 100% describing hypnogia or dreams, yet they accept the content of these hallucinations as absolute irrefutable truth. Again, it's educational IMO.
Those are all just parts of a model that seems to be repeatable and correct. They seem to be true. Given however, that there is no means of fortelling the future, there is no way to purport that one can be 100% sure that tomorrow all these things will still be true. Given this whole "arrow of time" thing (not to mention observational distance), we're basically stuck with models. Practically, yes they are true, but not absolutely.
The details aren't the point. That the future is unknown is the point. 100% confidence in a prediction is nothing more than ego. It says nothing of the properties of nature.
I feel like there is a more fundamental point that I can't quite find the words for at the moment.
Forming a model of reality is not the same as reality. You can never say for sure you covered all the variable or that the outcome can be predicted 100%, as for a ridiculous example, we cannot say 100% that physics won't go upside down tomorrow. Certainly I doubt that it would, but still, the point remains - the model is not "das ding an sich" or however rosa used to put it. All we, as the meager humans we are can do - is find comfort that our models provide utility.
wesmorris said:
You are quite correct. We don't know that some universal constant isn't going to change tomorrow and invalidate those items listed. It is true that the items I listed have been true for the past 'n' years and the study of objective reality revealed these truths... which does mean that science can in fact reveal truth (contrary to DDog's assertion).
wesmorris said:
We might discover governing rules that are unchanging and that might up the confidence perspective, or maybe everything is subject to change.
wesmorris said:
Quite correct. That's whats really cool about theories. They can be updated not with more accurate information or hypothetically changed information.
Crunchy Cat said:
Actually, it's not at all contrary to DDog's assertion, depending on how you interpret the assertion. Given that 'truth' was presented thusly "TRUTH", I presume "absolute truth" to be implied. Given that the only truth revealed by science is "truth about the model", I think DDog's assertion is exactly valid.
Crunchy Cat said:
You haven't read what I said Cat (or you misunderstood). What I said was:
What you have pointed out are some of the predictions science has enabled us to make. That is why it is useful. However the models it proposes are not "THE TRUTH". Newton's theory of gravity enabled him to predict the motions of the planets (roughly). However, his explanatory model that planets exert a "force at a distance" was incorrect (it took no account of time dilation) and was superceded by General Relativity.
Wes's point about the basic assumptions of science (e.g. that tomorrow will be like today) are another reason why we cannot take science as absolute, but view it as a paradigm - a way of modelling the world.
These are all empirical observations, only the first of which as far as I know was predicted. No2 was a conclusion drawn from observation of a single photon in Young's slits experiment, and No3 is probably much, much older!
Which only highlights that personal experience (e.g. empirical observation) is the basis for our concepts of reality. "Objective" empirical science depends on repeatable and predictable experiences - which is a problem when an experience (such as mysticism) is sporadic, rare and therefore cannot be easily verified. This is not a reason to discount it as false - but a limitation of our methodology.
P.S. I'd be interested in a reference to the research you mention on OOBEs. I am aware of anecdotal accounts by collectors such as Dr. Raymond Moody where OOBErs report seeing details that they would otherwise not know e.g.
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/sargent/beyond.htm
Last edited:
wesmorris said:
A key assertion that I am hearing is that something can only be accepted as truth if it accounts for all variables and all future dynamics of reality (i.e. 'absolute truth'). 1+1=2 for the past 'n' years, but in a billion years 1+1 might equal 5 because the rules of physics change... therefore to claim that 1+1=2 is false because it doesn't meet the criteria. There is something very important in this assertion that can be derived, and that is, whatever reality says is true... a 1:1 correspondence. Truth in every day language makes the assumption that the laws of reality today will be what they were yesterday. That is a reasonable scope and because of it I don't have to make silly assertions such as "my carpet will exist in 1.5 milliseconds unless... *some long list of physical properties changing and their results*"
You are correct in that science can show the truth of a model. Einstein's theory of relativity had many predictions which were tested and verified by reality (hence truth about the model was found). Many of those predictions were very strange and new, and the fact that reality did what the models stated also shows us truth about reality "unless... *some long list of physical properties changing and their results*".
Diogenes' Dog said:
Models are definately a product of science and knowledge is too (an end-product specifically). If any knowledge gained from science is something reality agrees with then it is truth. It would seem then that the study of objective reality (i.e. science) can in fact give us truth. I do agree that models themselves arent truth (I'll say generally, because there might be specific models which have a direct 1:1 correpondence with reality). Newton's model of gravity is a great example of a model that just wasn't the best.
Diogenes' Dog said:
You'll probably see my rebuttal to Wes so I won't repeat it here. Reality is the absolute. Science is the best known process for asking reality questions and getting answers:
* Science: Hey reality, how to I remove my buckyballs from a polymer resin soup they are generated in?
* Reality: Resin's are sticky and bonds to different contructs can be undone with a certain amount of heat. Put the resin soup on a surface that has a stronger bond than the buckyballs and then heat it up to the point where the buckyballs detach.
Diogenes' Dog said:
Yep, No 1 was predicted. No 2 was observed. No 3 was anecdotal. You would be amazed at how many college students looking for a beer buzz will say, hey shit ferments right? Lets try and ferment that apple juice! Ultimately all of these items are the result of some combination of observation, experimentation, and modeling (either science as a whole or it's constituents).
Diogenes' Dog said:
There might be a semantic line that's being crossed. Most people don't discount fantastic experiences as actually being experienced. The discounting typically comes when the experiencer makes a claim of truth as to what the experience was (i.e. a conclusion). I've seen many posters with schizophrenia claim they are telepathic. I even did an experiment with one of them in the parapsychology section for 1-2 weeks of dedicated process and his claim was falsified. The point is twofold:
A) Share the experience and don't make claims unless reality validates it (evidence).
B) Don't use the notion that the laws of reality might change tomorrow; therefore, the role and challenge of science is diminished.
Diogenes' Dog said:
Interesting Article:
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-05/features/extreme-states/?page=3
Blurb from another article:
"Modern scientists seem to possess a stronger sense of skepticism. At the University of Virginia, researchers have installed a laptop computer atop a tall bank of cardiac monitors in a hospital operating room in which patients undergoing defibrillator implantation routinely have their hearts stopped. No living person in the operating room can see the 12 simple images (a frog, a plane, or a doll, among others) flashing on the laptop's screen, since it faces the ceiling. But if you had died, and your soul had floated to the ceiling—a scenario described by legions of near-death survivors—you would have no problem later describing for researchers the images on the screen. So far in this study, no one has. Meanwhile, at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, neuroscientist Michael Persinger has induced paranoia in humans by subjecting them to low-level pulses of electromagnetic fields. The creepiness one feels in an old house, he posits, is more a matter of ungrounded wiring and overloaded circuit boxes than spooks."
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/departments/reviews-copy/
Thank you Wes - a great compliment!wesmorris said:
Godless said:
Thanks Godless - I now understand where you are coming from! I believe Ayn Rand said:
So, what reasoning leads objectivists to elevate reasoning itself to supremacy, and to assert:
Where is this "objective" 3rd realm? The arguments in your paper justify objectivism as a middle way between Intrinsicism and Subjectivism, without giving substantial reasons as to why it is better than these or any other alternative, or giving supporting evidence there is for adopting "objectivism".
Aren't you contradicting yourself? Can you justify the first statement, given what you subsequently say about "subjective feelings such as emotions, pain, fear and love. All these are real.."? Why not transcendent states of mind - because they are not common experiences?
I don't think Aborigines produce "industrial waste" - which is rather my point. Many scientists care about the environment, that is not in doubt. However, we as a culture continue to ruthlessly exploit our environment because we see ourselves as different from it. This alienation is the result of our "objective" materialistic or dualistic worldview - the view from nowhere. "Primitive" societies are self sustaining because only those that see the environment as "sacred" - as sharing the same fate as themselves have survived.superluminal said:
Their paradigm is self-sustaining - while we have alienated ourselves. We need to think differently! Do you not agree?
I take no exception with 99% of this. Very clearly stated, and I 99% agree.Diogenes' Dog said:
However, the part in red needs to be qualified in my opinion. When someone has a vision/experience that no one else shares, and claims that it represents an objective reality, it can usually be tested against what we know from our collective experience and physics. This is the crux of the biggest problem that atheists seem to have with theists. Making objective claims based on subjective experiences without supporting objective evidence is irrational and incorrect.
Your subjective experiences may give you the keys to understanding the universe and living in harmony with all beings, but that is just self-referential behavior modification. Nothing wrong with that. But when this overflows into the objective world (the consensus reality world we all live in) then the problem should be obvious. It's obvious to free-thinkers.
If I claim that a drug cures disease A with no good evidence to that effect, then I proceed to mass produce this drug and dispense it to the public, the disease will not go away, and I've wasted millions if not billions of dollars, and countless lives.
If I have a vision of god, with detailed intructions on how to live, and I write them down in a book or two, and begin mass producing these instructions and distributing them to the public, with no good evidence that they help with anything, then I've wasted thousands of years and millions of lives with a faulty, subjective approach.
I agree.Diogenes' Dog said:
P.S. Clearly the limitations of language and the slow-interactive nature of forums has an effect on discussions.
superluminal said:
I agree 100% that someone else's subjective experience is anecdotal evidence for the rest of us, and should be treated cautiously and with skeptical open-mindedness. Where possible, objective claims should be tested against observations (e.g. Crunchy Cat's experiments on OOBEs).
Diogenes' Dog said:
I'm really saying that we cannot know the validity of someone's experience, we can only judge on partial evidence e.g. their mental health, the practical effect on them (+ve or -ve), their suggestibility etc. and of course our existing beliefs!
For instance I am very disbelieving about "alien abduction" experiences. I can justify this rationally, but if I'm honest I don't trust the people I know who have had such. Many seem to me "unbalanced". However, I may be wrong.
I am more trusting of the people who have had "spiritual experiences", just because the people I know seem more sensible and rational. These experiences seem also to have had a positive effect. However, again I may be wrong - they may be deluded.
As I've said before, theism for me is a "working hypothesis". It is a subjective experiment to find out if the seeming positive effects, and experiences people speak of are true. They say that religion is caught not taught.
Last edited:
Whether or not the effects are true speaks little to the cause or accuracy of information right? As I said in another thread "without bullshit to bind us in purpose, we'd have gone extinct long ago".
I don't think it really qualifies as a hypothesis, because its accuracy cannot be tested. You can see if your life seems more positive or whatever, but the source of that positivity is still just the result of your choices and doesn't imply that the "hypothesis" of religion itself holds one smidge of "truth".
I'm with wes here. Fine. God is a hypothesis. So is the idea that the earth is flat and is the center of the solar system about which all else orbits. These were good hypotheses hundreds or thousand of years ago due to lack of any better insights. They were easily disproven with the right mindset and experiments. God as an agent in the workings of the cosmos is exactly the same thing. Given the current state of our understanding of the universe, there's still absolutely no sign of a creator. Especially one that fits the description of popular religions. The philosophical difference between the idea of the sun and everything else orbiting the earth and god is almost invisibly small.wesmorris said:
We may never know if the effects of religion are the products of psychology (e.g. activation of Jung's "Self" archetype) or due to the objective existence of God. However, if you wish to find out if Schroedinger's cat is alive, and you cannot open the box, you might call to it and listen for a response!wesmorris said:
That's what I'm doing. The hypothesis is that transcendent mind exists as the ground of our being and can respond to us. What that mind might be is unknown. In fact mystics such as Dionysius advise us to forget all concepts of God, and with "naked intent" desire only to know directly.
This links in with many people's experiences of Yogic or Buddhist meditation, which there are similarities to. To assume the hypothesis is false is never to find out!
Cunchy Cat said:
According to John Horgan (ex editor of Scientific American and an Atheist) Persinger's "God Machine" has been hugely overhyped. The most anyone has experienced is a vague sense of dissociation. No-one has had a mystical experience as a result of wearing his octopus helmet. It's neo-mesmerism as far as I can see! Quote from Edge
The OOBE experiment sounds promising, but we need to know how many people have had OOBEs in that room, and incorrectly identified the frogs etc. Not seeing the machine may not be evidence - it depends how well it is visible. Absence of proof etc...