Sometimes scientific enquiringly might leads one to make propositions which appear ridiculous. “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it” Albert Einstein
The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design
- Thread starter LFiess1942
- Start date
Sometimes scientific enquiringly might leads one to make propositions which appear ridiculous. “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it” Albert Einstein
Do you think you answered anything.
No one imposes objectivity. At best one rationally accepts that it is objective until evidence arises to the contrary.
Further, I'm not sure you quite understand what objective reality entails, as you say that it obviously does not hold true, and you seem to think it arises from sense experience...
What arises from sense experience is our subjective view of what might well be an objective reality. Nothing we can do can ever dispute or confirm whether reality is objective or subjective, so there is no "obviously does not hold true" about it.
A subjective reality, as generally understood, is where there is no objective reality at all, but that we each construct our own reality.
But since we can both look at the same object, even though we may experience it slightly differently, is it not rational to assume that there is indeed an objective reality that we then interpret subjectively and thus possibly differently?
And this just continues along what I see as a misunderstanding of what is meant by an objective or subjective reality, plus some rhetoric with no actual substance.
As I said, that is what some people also argue. But you will struggle to prove it. It is a philosophical position, as is the notion of there being an objective reality. Yet the latter is what the success of science shows to be rational, at least to those who think scientifically.
[qupte]Take for example the dream reality. When he is asleep, we find that the Mind of Man, is a generator of a reality we call “Dream State” This reality, generated by the mind, seems quite real to us, when we are asleep. [/quote]I'm sure it does to some people, but not to me. To me it is no more real than watching something on the TV, just a tad more interactive. I know some people claim their dreams are very realistic and they genuinely think it's real, but I've rarely if ever experienced that... Rather always on the cusp of telling my dream-self that it is a dream, but I don't as I know I'll wake up (although with practice you can stop yourself from doing so) and I enjoy the escapism of my dreams.
I suggest you do some research on lucid dreaming.
But no, I disagree that dreams are as vivid and as authentic as you make out, at least not for me. I can never see as clearly, or focus on things the way I can in reality. The colour is not there, but rather it is a blandish almost sepia-tinted experience, and everything is hazy. I always have this vague notion that it is not reality and I just go with the flow.
That said, I know others to whom their dreams are very real.
Yes, it is an entirely subjective world based on our experiences, and our interpretation of those experiences. Bent I'm sure you're getting to a point with all this.
First, I'll reiterate that, at least to me, the dream state is nothing like my reality. I do not experience it like I experience reality, although I am not generally fully aware that I am dreaming, but it is like I know that it is not reality but go with the flow.
As to your main point, if you genuinely dream in the same level of realism as your waking state, then there is no difference to you in the nature of the subjective experience. But this does not get to the heart of whether there is an objective reality or not. It merely means there are multiple layers of subjectivity: that experienced by your wakeful state, and another experienced by your dreaming state. But it speaks nothing to what may be behind them, causing them.
So interesting though it may be, I can't really see the relevance to the points in hand, nor to your notion of "unity" in this regard.
Further, if you think reality is subjective, are you not ultimately solipsist?
He's working on the basis that if one genuine scientific enquiry leads to what might be considered a ridiculous proposition then all ridiculous propositions can be considered to be from genuine scientific enquiry, thus enabling him (fallaciously) to claim his propositions as being from genuine scientific enquiry.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Your points are certainly the stuff of legitimate philosophical debate, I do not dispute that. And I am sure that many religiously inclined scientists feel that the order in nature which we explore through science suggests a creator. As I say, I have felt so myself, from time to time.
My point has throughout been a simple one, though. Such feelings and suggestions are subjective and personal, not objectively testable or logically deducible. As such, they do not belong in science. There is a whole world of the Humanities where such ideas can be elaborated and I would the first to acknowledge the value that the Humanities bring to understanding our experience as human beings. But they are not science, that's all.
The ID movement tries, disingenuously, to insinuate religious ideas into science as part of the social engineering project that was outlined in the Wedge Document. It has no valid philosophical foundation and is essentially an attempt to trick US politicians into demanding that religion be shoehorned into science teaching. It is is thus a phenomenon of the US culture wars and is essentially political in nature. It has nothing whatever to do with genuine science.
We have established, as surely as we can establish anything, with evidence and argument and hypothesis and experimental agreement, that there are at least two mechanisms by which order is guaranteed to emerge from chaos without the intervention of design or purpose: 1) chance event, and 2) Darwinian evolution.bigfoot said:
The emergence and elaboration of living beings on Earth - the most complex order we know of - appears to be beyond the capabilities of chance alone, but well fitted to the expected results of Darwinian evolution.
It is up to you to argue that these two established mechanisms of emergent order are insufficient to account for some feature of the universe visible to us, and then either 1) that no other mechanism of emergent order is possible, or 2) that there is positive evidence of design with intent.
My point has throughout been a simple one, though. Such feelings and suggestions are subjective and personal, not objectively testable or logically deducible. As such, they do not belong in science. There is a whole world of the Humanities where such ideas can be elaborated and I would the first to acknowledge the value that the Humanities bring to understanding our experience as human beings. But they are not science, that's all.
I Know that most scientist have this hardnosed dispassionate regard to phenomena, especially when considering it with scientific logic. That’s what makes it pure, objective, and unbiased. That, would be okay, if we were to retain the dualistic perspective of “Observer” and the “Observed” I tried here, to show that Quantum Mechanics have with a lot of resistance from scientists joined the observe and the observed. Some have claimed, that the collapse of the Wave Function during measurement of quantum entities, have nothing to do with observation, but measurement. And even the Schrödinger Cat experiment and its support of Quantum Entanglement appearing in macro systems its is to stretch the argument beyond science.
I beg to differ. Your so-called “objectively testable” and “logically deductible” have become mare probability in Quantum realm. So, I rather feel that there is a rigidity in your case, in holding on to a logic that has ended its purposed, and demanded that you approach reality using a different methodology. For the objectivity disappears, in quantum realm, joining the observer and the observed. However one looks at it, we are left mark-timing on the edged like we are in the “event horizon” neither disappearing completely, not reverting. we have to be brave enough, to consider a evolutional approach of Copernican magnitude.
It is up to you to argue that these two established mechanisms of emergent order are insufficient to account for some feature of the universe visible to us, and then either 1) that no other mechanism of emergent order is possible, or 2) that there is positive evidence of design with intent.
As you have well nigh dismissed chance, the only other mechanism is Darwinian evolution. But Darwinian evolution has two major problems.
(1), the beginning or the cause of life.
(2) Human Intelligence which, (if we are to believe climate change proponents) is a challenge to nature. How could nature evolve a creature which is more powerful than she is, to an extent of this creature now appear to threaten nature’s very existence? How can that which is alleged to have brought forth man, and gave him his intelligence, also appear to also be subjective, and subservient to him? How could nature endow man, with superior intelligence, yet it denies herself powers to control him?
I'm sure it does to some people, but not to me. To me it is no more real than watching something on the TV, just a tad more interactive. I know some people claim their dreams are very realistic and they genuinely think it's real, but I've rarely if ever experienced that... Rather always on the cusp of telling my dream-self that it is a dream, but I don't as I know I'll wake up (although with practice you can stop yourself from doing so) and I enjoy the escapism of my dreams.
I suggest you do some research on lucid dreaming.
But no, I disagree that dreams are as vivid and as authentic as you make out, at least not for me. I can never see as clearly, or focus on things the way I can in reality. The colour is not there, but rather it is a blandish almost sepia-tinted experience, and everything is hazy. I always have this vague notion that it is not reality and I just go with the flow.
That said, I know others to whom their dreams are very real.
Yes, it is an entirely subjective world based on our experiences, and our interpretation of those experiences. Bent I'm sure you're getting to a point with all this.
First, I'll reiterate that, at least to me, the dream state is nothing like my reality. I do not experience it like I experience reality, although I am not generally fully aware that I am dreaming, but it is like I know that it is not reality but go with the flow.
As to your main point, if you genuinely dream in the same level of realism as your waking state, then there is no difference to you in the nature of the subjective experience. But this does not get to the heart of whether there is an objective reality or not. It merely means there are multiple layers of subjectivity: that experienced by your wakeful state, and another experienced by your dreaming state. But it speaks nothing to what may be behind them, causing them.
So interesting though it may be, I can't really see the relevance to the points in hand, nor to your notion of "unity" in this regard.
Further, if you think reality is subjective, are you not ultimately solipsist?[/QUOTE]
No one imposes objectivity. At best one rationally accepts that it is objective until evidence arises to the contrary. Further, I'm not sure you quite understand what objective reality entails, as you say that it obviously does not hold true, and you seem to think it arises from sense experience...
What arises from sense experience is our subjective view of what might well be an objective reality. Nothing we can do can ever dispute or confirm whether reality is objective or subjective, so there is no "obviously does not hold true" about it. A subjective reality, as generally understood, is where there is no objective reality at all, but that we each construct our own reality. But since we can both look at the same object, even though we may experience it slightly differently, is it not rational to assume that there is indeed an objective reality that we then interpret subjectively and thus possibly differently?
“but that we each construct our own reality”
What we have is a consensus, that we have an “objective reality” objective to all, which we subjectively perceive. Its just the way different people have a “consensus” on many things which later are proved wrong. Just the other day, we had a consensus that the earth is “flat” until another perspective emerged. So, just because we have adopted a methodology which appears to be dispassionate in its analysis of phenomena, does not necessarily mean that it will eventually lead us to the truth. It has only lead us this far, where it claims “well, reality is probabilistic” and super-positioned” This, is beyond logic, because logic that has lead us this far, uses what Exchemist refer to as testable or logically deducible.
But when phenomena assumes a different status where this analytical approach is obfuscated, its at this point one has to consider that objectivity and subjectivity can no longer help in understanding phenomena.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes I know you think this about Quantum Mechanics, but that is because you do not understand Quantum Mechanics very well.
While I do not claim to be a quantum physicist, I did study molecular QM as my supplementary subject at university, so I have a reasonable idea of how it works. I - and several others, so I am not alone in this - have already pointed out to you several times that the "collapse" of the wavefunction is due to inanimate interaction, not to "observation" or "measurement" by a conscious observer. The notion that QM tells us reality is responsive to conscious observation is an unfortunate piece of quantum woo.
You evidently have decided to ignore this basic point, in spite of it being made to you several times. I can only conclude that you do so because you have constructed a woolly rationale for merging science with religion on the back of it, which you are unable to give up.
Maybe you need to visit this guy here, so that you may see the people who are influencing my point of view
; http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
"The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)
I can't argue against this , because it is true
But what I will say is this ;
When any being , a thinking being , is lead by , what they think as a being superior to themselves , then they can be doomed to being an uncontemplative being
Hence will not evolve to the advancement of questioning
And questioning , the ability to question , is the essence of consciousness
(Took me a while to wonder why you were merely repeating everything I said... word for word... twice in someplaces...?)
As explained, whether there is an objective reality or whether it is entirely subjective can never be proven.
So the notion that there is an objective reality is just that, a notion, but one that many of us consider as the most rational position... that there is something, the same thing for all, that we observe which is then made subjective by that which we observe through. Whether it is the consensus opinion or not is moot. But to compare the notion to one that has been proven false is yet another unwarranted assumption on your part.
As for the rest, you are now merely committing the fallacy of special pleading, but with nothing to support the need for it.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
The website seems to be the personal site of some nut called Geoff Hazelhurst, who seems to have no credentials at all.
I wonder whether he wants to be understood.
First, as quoted this appears to be nothing but the fallacy of an appeal to consequence, claiming that the consequences (pollution, over-population and the ilk) are reason enough to show the incorrectness of the premises.
Secondly, it seems to be an issue of correlation rather than causation. I.e. the supposed consequences are claimed to be caused by the premise, rather than it just being mere correlation. Yet there is no evidence/support provided that shows it to be causation rather than correlation.
Thirdly, and taking into account the above, there are unsupported claims that the notion "is evidently illusory".
So if you're going to let people influence your view, might I suggest you apply some critical thinking with regard what they say.
They may be correct. They may not be correct. But he's not helping himself with arguments such as that which you have quoted.
Me too. Guess that's what I have been doing here. Questioning the essence of consciousness.
What I understand about Quantum Mechanics, is that "big things" are not made of "Small Things" There are no "small things frozen in space, out of which matter is made. There are scientists who have explained it very well, and no-scientists like me, understand what is being said. I do not need to do complex formula, to understand the "Wave Particle" duality of Quantum entity. I understand in lay-man's language, the EPR paradox. I understand Bells Theorem.
Quantum Mechanics, basically is a new physics that breaks away from Classical Mechanics , which treats matter as "objectively testable and logically deducible." and therefore deterministic. But Quantum Mechanics treats matter as probabilistic, and supper positioned and therefore existing as in-deterministic state.
In a way therefore, to me, Quantum Mechanics demands a different approach, beyond the classical method, and therefore beyond logic. And its my opinion that some here, especially Sarkus who are forcing Classical approach, , on Quantum approach. If you understand Quantum Mechanics, and you understand that it has broke away from Classical Physics, you would realize that the nature of matter has been found to be mare speculative . (Wave Particle)
So, if Big Things and not made of small things, and the state of matter is speculative, should it not be our curiosity to wonder, if we are in this state of supper positioning, what is this "thinking thing"? If matter is made of undulating "nothingness" what then, is consciousness which perceives this undulating "nothingness" as some form of experience?
