Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

What you think about how you think.
Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:16 pm

So SweetPea, you aren't willing to clarify if you believe that a little subjectivity could equal objectivity? That the two concepts are not mutually exclusive?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:05 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:So SweetPea, you aren't willing to clarify if you believe that a little subjectivity could equal objectivity? That the two concepts are not mutually exclusive?


I answered a question for you, although you were not due any answers to questions. You're playing a question game rather than simply stating the alternative inference available as would be expected had I misread your statement. You should already have had the "correct" reading when you wrote it, one would surmise. It's more than 5 hrs later now.

No, eh ?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:14 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:So SweetPea, you aren't willing to clarify if you believe that a little subjectivity could equal objectivity? That the two concepts are not mutually exclusive?


This strikes me as going down the same 'escape by semantics' route....maybe someone should call it the Bill Clinton method...that was used in the original consciousness thread.

Clearly, subjective is the opposite of objective. The fact that one may be able to argue that subjective experience is affected by objective reality does not alter the fact that the experience is still subjective. Likewise, one could argue that even a hallucination has a 'basis' in objective neurons.

The real issue is that if one has agreed that there is no 1:1 experience of reality, then what, exactly, is a neuron ? In order to state that it has an objective reality you have to roll back that 'no 1:1 experience' and apply objectivity to personal experience. But clearly you have then partially negated the 'no 1:1 experience'.

Does this negate science ? No...it simply means that scientists ought to be asking to what extent does the brain itself shape our perception of reality. Is it a large extent or a small extent. If, as the 'no 1:1 experience' suggests, it is a very large extent...then we ought to be asking what aspects that we label as aspects of the external world are actually more to do with how brains perceive worlds than to do with the world itself.

Scientists often comment on how remarkable it is that mathematics describes the world. It is far less remarkable if mathematics is derived from how brains work than from how the world itself actually works. If you really accept the 'no 1:1 experience' hypothesis then a good deal more of the world than you might wish for becomes subjective.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:29 am

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:So SweetPea, you aren't willing to clarify if you believe that a little subjectivity could equal objectivity? That the two concepts are not mutually exclusive?


This strikes me as going down the same 'escape by semantics' route....
There's no escape. All he can do is hope to draw someone into making a conflicting set of statements. I've got his every rat hole covered.

Still waiting for the alternative inference.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:48 am

SweetPea wrote:All he can do is hope to draw someone into making a conflicting set of statements.


Oh I didn't have to draw you into it. You jumped right on in.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:Thank you for handling it a lot more concisely and thus effectively than I would have done. I think my problem is I said more than needs to be said.


Here's the point of my little aside with SweetPea. By me saying that empirical evidence leads us towards more objective observations, that is not quite the same as me saying that we ever get there -- indeed, I have repeatedly indicated that I don't think we do. You, however, appear to be suggesting that I'm dancing the line between the two, sometimes saying empirical evidence is objective, sometimes saying it's not. I disagree.

Here's what I am saying:

1) There's a spectrum from true subjectivity (blind guess) to true objectivity (objective truth)
2) Observations can fall on a spectrum anywhere from one end to the other.
3) It's impossible to be either fully objective (true belief) or, I suspect, fully subjective (true guess)
4) Chalmers is somewhere closer to subjective observation while cognitive psychology falls somewhere closer to objective observation.
5) It is preferable to be as objective as possible.

Addendum: I should also add that I think a true, objective reality does actually exist; although, our observations of that reality are necessarily subjective.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:Clearly, subjective is the opposite of objective.


I agree. SweetPea, however, appears to think that an objective truth can also be a little subjective.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:No...it simply means that scientists ought to be asking to what extent does the brain itself shape our perception of reality.


As a field, that's what neuroscience and cog psych exist to do. That's precisely the question they are setting out to answer.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:02 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:All he can do is hope to draw someone into making a conflicting set of statements.


Oh I didn't have to draw you into it. You jumped right on in.

Nope. Got your every rat hole covered. But you just proved my surmise about your intentions correct.

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:Thank you for handling it a lot more concisely and thus effectively than I would have done. I think my problem is I said more than needs to be said.


Here's the point of my little aside with SweetPea. By me saying that empirical evidence leads us towards more objective observations, that is not quite the same as me saying that we ever get there -- indeed, I have repeatedly indicated that I don't think we do. You, however, appear to be suggesting that I'm dancing the line between the two, sometimes saying empirical evidence is objective, sometimes saying it's not. I disagree.
Nobody's claiming that you are consistent. Sure you say other things. But you demanded

CanadianSkeptic wrote:
Cygnus wrote:You are still referring to 'empirical data' as if there was some objective third party observer independent of it all who had a handle on 'the real reality'.
Do I? Please cite where I even imply that.

and so we got to this:
Canadian Skeptic wrote: However, in a discipline such as physics, I don’t think there actually is a lot of subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres


You have been unable to give the "correct" reading.
Last edited by SweetPea on Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:09 am

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:All he can do is hope to draw someone into making a conflicting set of statements.


Oh I didn't have to draw you into it. You jumped right on in.

Nope. Got your every rat hole covered. But you just proved my surmise about your intentions correct.


For what it's worth, I would have preferred if you didn't contradict yourself.

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote: However, in a discipline such as physics, I don’t think there actually is a lot of subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres


You have unable to give the "correct" reading.


The answer: that there is some subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres."

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:20 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:All he can do is hope to draw someone into making a conflicting set of statements.


Oh I didn't have to draw you into it. You jumped right on in.

Nope. Got your every rat hole covered. But you just proved my surmise about your intentions correct.


For what it's worth, I would have preferred if you didn't contradict yourself.

I didn't contradict myself.

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote: However, in a discipline such as physics, I don’t think there actually is a lot of subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres


You have unable to give the "correct" reading.


The answer: that there is some subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres."
Thus it's not objective. You are doing just what Cygnus said.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:22 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:All he can do is hope to draw someone into making a conflicting set of statements.


Oh I didn't have to draw you into it. You jumped right on in.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:Thank you for handling it a lot more concisely and thus effectively than I would have done. I think my problem is I said more than needs to be said.


Here's the point of my little aside with SweetPea. By me saying that empirical evidence leads us towards more objective observations, that is not quite the same as me saying that we ever get there -- indeed, I have repeatedly indicated that I don't think we do. You, however, appear to be suggesting that I'm dancing the line between the two, sometimes saying empirical evidence is objective, sometimes saying it's not. I disagree.

Here's what I am saying:

1) There's a spectrum from true subjectivity (blind guess) to true objectivity (objective truth)
2) Observations can fall on a spectrum anywhere from one end to the other.
3) It's impossible to be either fully objective (true belief) or, I suspect, fully subjective (true guess)
4) Chalmers is somewhere closer to subjective observation while cognitive psychology falls somewhere closer to objective observation.
5) It is preferable to be as objective as possible.

Addendum: I should also add that I think a true, objective reality does actually exist; although, our observations of that reality are necessarily subjective.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:Clearly, subjective is the opposite of objective.


I agree. SweetPea, however, appears to think that an objective truth can also be a little subjective.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:No...it simply means that scientists ought to be asking to what extent does the brain itself shape our perception of reality.


As a field, that's what neuroscience and cog psych exist to do. That's precisely the question they are setting out to answer.



I understand your position entirely...and I think you understand mine, and that's really the key to properly debating the issue.

I think you grasp that there is a dilemma...an especially serious one if one adopts the 'no 1:1 experience at all' hypothesis.

I would agree, to some extent, that one cannot simply give up at what appears to be an impasse and that one has to try to find whatever element of objectivity one can find. Clearly, experience is 'affected' by the external world...one has to assume that there is actually an objective real world somewhere behind all the subjective experience.

It was not really my intention to go down the fully fledged 'no 1:1' road, because whether true or not it is a cul de sac with no way out. It was far more my intent to focus on the degree to which the brain shapes our perception of the world. My real point was that currently that is something dealt with primarily via hallucinations, visual illusions, and so on...with the perception being that mis-perception of the real world is some sort of aberration and that most of the time we have a full handle on objective reality. My real point was that even our taken for granted everyday reality may likely be a subjective mis-perception and that the 'illusions' extend much further than we think.

I think that is analogous to your point about the 'spectrum'. We differ largely on how much of the spectrum is truly 'objective'.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:27 am

By me saying that empirical evidence leads us towards more objective observations

How is that "empirical" evidence established, if not through objective observations...which you claim it leads to?
You're pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps to reach for that one.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:35 am

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:All he can do is hope to draw someone into making a conflicting set of statements.


Oh I didn't have to draw you into it. You jumped right on in.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:Thank you for handling it a lot more concisely and thus effectively than I would have done. I think my problem is I said more than needs to be said.


Here's the point of my little aside with SweetPea. By me saying that empirical evidence leads us towards more objective observations, that is not quite the same as me saying that we ever get there -- indeed, I have repeatedly indicated that I don't think we do. You, however, appear to be suggesting that I'm dancing the line between the two, sometimes saying empirical evidence is objective, sometimes saying it's not. I disagree.

Here's what I am saying:

1) There's a spectrum from true subjectivity (blind guess) to true objectivity (objective truth)
2) Observations can fall on a spectrum anywhere from one end to the other.
3) It's impossible to be either fully objective (true belief) or, I suspect, fully subjective (true guess)
4) Chalmers is somewhere closer to subjective observation while cognitive psychology falls somewhere closer to objective observation.
5) It is preferable to be as objective as possible.

Addendum: I should also add that I think a true, objective reality does actually exist; although, our observations of that reality are necessarily subjective.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:Clearly, subjective is the opposite of objective.


I agree. SweetPea, however, appears to think that an objective truth can also be a little subjective.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:No...it simply means that scientists ought to be asking to what extent does the brain itself shape our perception of reality.


As a field, that's what neuroscience and cog psych exist to do. That's precisely the question they are setting out to answer.



I understand your position entirely...and I think you understand mine, and that's really the key to properly debating the issue.

I think you grasp that there is a dilemma...an especially serious one if one adopts the 'no 1:1 experience at all' hypothesis.

I would agree, to some extent, that one cannot simply give up at what appears to be an impasse and that one has to try to find whatever element of objectivity one can find. Clearly, experience is 'affected' by the external world...one has to assume that there is actually an objective real world somewhere behind all the subjective experience.

It was not really my intention to go down the fully fledged 'no 1:1' road, because whether true or not it is a cul de sac with no way out. It was far more my intent to focus on the degree to which the brain shapes our perception of the world. My real point was that currently that is something dealt with primarily via hallucinations, visual illusions, and so on...with the perception being that mis-perception of the real world is some sort of aberration and that most of the time we have a full handle on objective reality. My real point was that even our taken for granted everyday reality may likely be a subjective mis-perception and that the 'illusions' extend much further than we think.

I think that is analogous to your point about the 'spectrum'. We differ largely on how much of the spectrum is truly 'objective'.


Actually I should add that the point is not really Chalmers....he has merely appropriated ( I hope with recognition somewhere though I've not seen it ) the ideas of Kant. It was Kant who first wondered, having observed that the perceived 'blue' of the sky is created by the brain....just how far does that rabbit hole actually go ? Kant wondered whether even shape, form, and even ( horror of horrors ) mathematics might be down that rabbit hole as well.

Science was happy with Kant's reasoning up until 'the sky isn't really blue'....but quite understandably balked at the idea that it went any further. And that wasn't really helped by Berkeley going off at a tangent with idealism ( which I don't believe in ).

So, the question of how far the rabbit hole goes never really got answered. It was brushed to one side. With the advent of cognitive psychology it is returning with a vengeance...and whilst this might be a 'fringe' science issue today I don't think it will be in 10 or 20 years.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:40 am

Pyrrho summed it up:
Anyway, can't build bridges using metaphysics.


Because we find "knowledge" functional is not sufficient reason to conclude that it's reality. A witch doctor could use a plant that has a beneficial effect, though we might call his "knowledge" error.
It's arrived at through subjective means. It's what we have.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:29 am

SweetPea wrote:I didn't contradict myself.


/shrug. You seem to think that something can be a little subjective and also objective. I guess that's fine if you see nothing wrong with that.

SweetPea wrote:Thus it's not objective. You are doing just what Cygnus said.


You're right. It's not objective. And that's exactly what I said it was. Where did I lose you on that one?

SweetPea wrote:
By me saying that empirical evidence leads us towards more objective observations

How is that "empirical" evidence established, if not through objective observations...which you claim it leads to?


Through observations.

Cygnus_X1 wrote:I think that is analogous to your point about the 'spectrum'. We differ largely on how much of the spectrum is truly 'objective'.


Do we *really* differ on the degree of objectivity in the observation of, say, an object falling down at 9.8m/s^2?

Cygnus_X1 wrote:So, the question of how far the rabbit hole goes never really got answered. It was brushed to one side. With the advent of cognitive psychology it is returning with a vengeance...and whilst this might be a 'fringe' science issue today I don't think it will be in 10 or 20 years.


If by "fringe" you mean probably the sexiest topic in modern psychology, sure.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:42 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:I didn't contradict myself.


/shrug. You seem to think that something can be a little subjective and also objective. I guess that's fine if you see nothing wrong with that.
No, I did not contradict myself.. You think wrong.

SweetPea wrote:Thus it's not objective. You are doing just what Cygnus said.


You're right. It's not objective. And that's exactly what I said it was. Where did I lose you on that one?
When you claimed "not much subjectivity". How can it not be subjective if it's not objective?
You're the one who is in contradiction.


SweetPea wrote:
By me saying that empirical evidence leads us towards more objective observations

How is that "empirical" evidence established, if not through objective observations...which you claim it leads to?


Through observations.
So you're claiming that non-objective observations lead toward more objective observations.

You're pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps to reach for that.

Then you insist that they are not objective, and that's what you meant :)

On the other hand, you say:
You seem to think that something can be a little subjective and also objective


On the other other hand, you said:
However, in a discipline such as physics, I don’t think there actually is a lot of subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres
:lol:


How to catch 'em: they won't let go. They just never learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHdJVzYBBOU
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:48 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Do we *really* differ on the degree of objectivity in the observation of, say, an object falling down at 9.8m/s^2?


Well, yes, even relativity shows that observations are relative to the observer. Hypothetically a far distant observer travelling towards us at very near the speed of light could even observe our future ( according to Brian Greene ). And what about Schrodinger's poor old cat ? The science of the past 100 years has itself introduced a measure of subjectivity....or observer relativeness. But more to the point....what if time itself is illusory...by no means a crazy idea and one I see even Mr Greene and several others consider.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:04 am

SweetPea wrote:No, I did not contradict myself.. You think wrong.


Hey, if you don't think there's anything odd about thinking something can be slightly subjective but also fully objective at the same time, that's your prerogative.

SweetPea wrote:How can it not be subjective if it's not objective? You're the one who is in contradiction.


It is subjective. To be more precise, it's slightly subjective. Did I lose you on this point?

SweetPea wrote:So you're claiming that non-objective observations lead toward more objective observations.


I said they exist on a spectrum.

SweetPea wrote:Then you insist that they are not objective, and that's what you meant


That's right! I'm claiming that something that is slightly subjective is therefore not fully objective.

SweetPea wrote:On the other other hand, you said:
However, in a discipline such as physics, I don’t think there actually is a lot of subjectivity in a measurement such as “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres


Indeed! There is some level of subjectivity in the observation that “this object took X seconds to fall Y metres." That is, the observation is not fully objective. But using a well-calibrated atomic clock to time the object's fall sure gets closer to objectivity than counting in your head.

Sorry, I probably lost you again.

Even with the atomic clock, the observation is still subjective (to within a certain number of significant figures).

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
Do we *really* differ on the degree of objectivity in the observation of, say, an object falling down at 9.8m/s^2?


Well, yes, even relativity shows that observations are relative to the observer. Hypothetically a far distant observer travelling towards us at very near the speed of light could even observe our future ( according to Brian Greene ). And what about Schrodinger's poor old cat ? The science of the past 100 years has itself introduced a measure of subjectivity....or observer relativeness. But more to the point....what if time itself is illusory...by no means a crazy idea and one I see even Mr Greene and several others consider.


Again, I'm asking if we differ in that opinion. You seem to think that I believe the observation of the object falling at 9.8 m/s^2 is an objective truth. It's not -- it's subjective. Granted, we both presume the object does fall at some objective value, but our observation of that phenomenon is subjective.

Physicists, in this case, would describe that subjectivity in terms of significant figures, standard deviation, and so on. And as I remarked to SweetPea, we might reasonably infer that measuring the fall of the object using an atomic clock is probably closer to that objective value than counting in our heads.

This is what I mean by approaching -- but never reaching -- objective truth through improving our empirical methods.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:19 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:No, I did not contradict myself.. You think wrong.


Hey, if you don't think there's anything odd about thinking something can be slightly subjective but also fully objective at the same time, that's your prerogative.
I never said anything like that. What a pathetic ploy.

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:How can it not be subjective if it's not objective? You're the one who is in contradiction.


It is subjective. To be more precise, it's slightly subjective. Did I lose you on this point?

You lost yourself:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:I didn't contradict myself.
/shrug. You seem to think that something can be a little subjective and also objective. I guess that's fine if you see nothing wrong with that.


Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:So you're claiming that non-objective observations lead toward more objective observations.
I said they exist on a spectrum.
Yet you said
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Thus it's not objective.
You're right. It's not objective. And that's exactly what I said it was.



Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Then you insist that they are not objective, and that's what you meant
That's right! I'm claiming that something that is slightly subjective is therefore not fully objective.

Canadian Skeptic wrote:You're right. It's not objective. And that's exactly what I said it was


:lol:

Canadian Skeptic wrote:You seem to think that something can be a little subjective and also objective. I guess that's fine if you see nothing wrong with that.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:41 am

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Hey, if you don't think there's anything odd about thinking something can be slightly subjective but also fully objective at the same time, that's your prerogative.
I never said anything like that. What a pathetic ploy.


Didn't you, though?

First, you said that you agree with the statement, "not much subjectivity = objectivity."

Second, you said you would agree with the statement, "a little subjectivity could = not much subjectivity."

Let X = not much subjectivity
Let Y = objectivity
Let Z = A little subjectivity

X = Y
Z could = X
Therefore: Z could = Y

That is, a little subjectivity could equal objectivity. Except, despite the above syllogism (which, I daresay, is a valid representation of your arguments), you now claim that you never said any such thing.

Ergo, a contradiction.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:45 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Hey, if you don't think there's anything odd about thinking something can be slightly subjective but also fully objective at the same time, that's your prerogative.
I never said anything like that. What a pathetic ploy.


Didn't you, though?

First, you said that you agree with the statement, "not much subjectivity = objectivity."
That's a lie you just told. You did not use a quotation - because you are lying.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:48 am

SweetPea wrote:That's a lie you just told. You did not use a quotation - because you are lying.


Oh?

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Not much subjectivity = objectivity?
Right!

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:55 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:That's a lie you just told. You did not use a quotation - because you are lying.


Oh?

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Not much subjectivity = objectivity?
Right!
I was not agreeing with your statement.
I was saying that YOU implied it.
SweetPea wrote:You imply objectivity by saying there is not much subjectivity.


Which you denied.
What a pathetic ploy.

SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Where did I imply there was empirical objectivity even in physics?


You imply objectivity by saying there is not much subjectivity.


So you deny that there is objectivity even in physics. You deny that I read you right when I quoted you. You deny...etc etc.
Last edited by SweetPea on Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:13 am

SweetPea wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Not much subjectivity = objectivity?
Right!
I was not agreeing with your statement.
I was saying that YOU implied it.
SweetPea wrote:You imply objectivity by saying there is not much subjectivity.

Which you denied.


The only way I can imply objectivity by saying there is not much subjectivity is if "not much subjectivity = objectivity." Otherwise, if "not much subjectivity =/= objectivity," then how could saying not much subjectivity imply objectivity?

I don't think it does. Allegedly you don't think it does, either. So it appears I never implied objectivity at all. Yet you claim I did.

Another contradiction.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:20 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:So it appears I never implied objectivity at all. Yet you claim I did.


Canadian Skeptic wrote:You seem to think that something can be a little subjective and also objective. I guess that's fine if you see nothing wrong with that.


Canadian Skeptic wrote: I said they exist on a spectrum.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:21 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Not much subjectivity = objectivity?
Right!
I was not agreeing with your statement.
I was saying that YOU implied it.
SweetPea wrote:You imply objectivity by saying there is not much subjectivity.

Which you denied.


The only way I can imply objectivity by saying there is not much subjectivity is if "not much subjectivity = objectivity." Otherwise, if "not much subjectivity =/= objectivity," then how could saying not much subjectivity imply objectivity?

I don't think it does. Allegedly you don't think it does, either. So it appears I never implied objectivity at all. Yet you claim I did.

Another contradiction.
I'm not claiming that you have been consistent :)
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:26 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:Second, you said you would agree with the statement, "a little subjectivity could = not much subjectivity."

You're lying. This is what I said.
SweetPea wrote:
Canadian Skeptic wrote:Would you also agree that a little subjectivity = not much subjectivity?

No.


What a pathetic ploy
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:29 am

Does something existing on a spectrum between subjectivity and objectivity imply it is objective?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:36 am

You failed, you lied, and now you want to ask questions.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:47 am

SweetPea wrote:You failed, you lied, and now you want to ask questions.


Bahaha, you should be eager to answer it. After all, your entire critique of me depends upon the answer.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:48 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweePea wrote: How can it not be subjective if it's not objective? You're the one who is in contradiction.
It is subjective.

Here you agree that it is subjective.
Here you deny that it is objective
Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweePea wrote:Thus it's not objective. You are doing just what Cygnus said.
You're right. It's not objective. And that's exactly what I said it was

You've stated that it is subjective, and it is not objective.

No to objective, yes to subjective.
:lol:

Then you say somewhere in between
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:59 am

SweetPea wrote:Here you agree that it is subjective.
Here you deny that it is objective

You've stated that it is subjective, and it is not objective.

No to objective, yes to subjective.


I think someone hit your repeat button.

SweetPea wrote:Then you say somewhere in between


Indeed. Where's the problem?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:06 am

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Here you agree that it is subjective.
Here you deny that it is objective

You've stated that it is subjective, and it is not objective.

No to objective, yes to subjective.


I think someone hit your repeat button.

SweetPea wrote:Then you say somewhere in between


Indeed. Where's the problem?

You need to have your words repeated to you.

You replied that it IS NOT objective.
You replied that it IS subjective. Not that it is not fully subjective, but that it IS subjective.
It IS subjective. It IS NOT objective.
That does not mean somewhere in the middle.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:10 am

Are we discussing the nature of subjectivity vs. objectivity?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:20 am

Oh, I guess it must be the case from reading the thread back to the top of this page.

I'm not sure how or where the sincere distinction for 'subject' vs 'objective' has evolved into becoming anything real beyond the original logical terms that refer to where one starts to where one ends. But when it comes to seeking truth, the only means to do this is to observe things subjectively while the concept of 'objectivity' is only a convention of agreement amongst some accepted group of subjective observers. In reality, there is actually no such thing as true 'objectivity' for all since this requires all subjects who participate to have not just the potential of being able to observe, but the active reality to measure the evidences directly from each participant. An ideal for objectivity is a god's perspective for which all are at least eligible to be able to observe from as well as to be able to be truthfully have actively observed (not just consented by popularity) the evidence for themselves.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

clarifyit4me
Regular Poster
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:35 pm
Custom Title: Apply

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby clarifyit4me » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:54 am

Zeuzzz wrote:
Well I have news for you. There is no reality. There are only people who know this.
Haha! Another contradiction. How can you say in one breath there is no reality, then say in another, dreams are real experiences.

Zeuzzz wrote
Dreams are real experiences. They happen. Indigestion is a real subjective experience, we feel it, it happens.


You cannot have a real experience. Experience is relative. Experience by its very nature is transient; what is real is not in movement. However sublime the experience it is not the real thing. You had breakfast yesterday, where is this experience now? Do you not have to refer to your memory to recall it? The experience has gone, but what is left?

A dream is a dream. Whatever you experience in this dream, the perception of it is based on memory. Feeling is actual, but the 'experience' of feeling is also based on memory. You don't know what you feel but you know you feel. can you not see the difference in kind? For instance; in your waking state you feel a rock but its form, shape, colour and texture is in the experience. These are related to memory only. The fact that you feel is in actuality; it is not related, it is totally in the 'NOW'. When you dream, images flow passed the mind in an endless stream. Whilst the body is in sleep, the mind is free to draw out the most elaborate of dreams based on that part of the memory that is suppressed. In your waking state, it is still dreaming but obviously you cannot fight a lion with your bear hands an expect to win. Nor could you jump of a 200ft building and expect to survive, there are physical laws to consider; you sense something and the mind draws out the experience from memory, that which is acceptable and compatible with the waking state.

What is known is merely the reflection of what is essentially unknowable.
In every experience there is the touch of the real. But it is you who imparts this reality, not the experience. Experience is dependent on sensation, the sensation is reflected in the experience; the experience comes and goes. Being on the other hand is independent of experience and since it is totally in the now it is reflected as awareness. Experience is secondary, being fundamental. Experience is contained in the memory, being has its place in actuality.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:17 am

100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

clarifyit4me
Regular Poster
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:35 pm
Custom Title: Apply

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby clarifyit4me » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:18 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Are we discussing the nature of subjectivity vs. objectivity?


No. He is trying to describe the real in the unreal. Himself, in the dream. Only through lack of experience he misunderstands.

There is no object subject, these are just mental constructs thought and imagined and are unrelated to the real. If you get to involved in the subject object nexus you will inevitably contradict yourself - you are not in this mentation.

clarifyit4me
Regular Poster
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:35 pm
Custom Title: Apply

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby clarifyit4me » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:22 am

Cygnus_X1 wrote:


Where is the maths? Is it not in the mind only?

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:14 pm

SweetPea wrote:You replied that it IS NOT objective.
You replied that it IS subjective. Not that it is not fully subjective, but that it IS subjective.
It IS subjective. It IS NOT objective.
That does not mean somewhere in the middle.


So, if it's not fully subjective, as you nicely bolded, and it is not objective, doesn't that mean it should fall somewhere between fully subjective and fully objective? I.e., on a spectrum?

Scott Mayers wrote:But when it comes to seeking truth, the only means to do this is to observe things subjectively while the concept of 'objectivity' is only a convention of agreement amongst some accepted group of subjective observers.


Exactly. Though, there are tools and methods we can use to more closely approximate "objective" values (e.g., an atomic clock vs. counting in your head).

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby SweetPea » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Canadian Skeptic wrote:
SweetPea wrote:You replied that it IS NOT objective.
You replied that it IS subjective. Not that it is not fully subjective, but that it IS subjective.
It IS subjective. It IS NOT objective.
That does not mean somewhere in the middle.


So, if it's not fully subjective, as you nicely bolded, and it is not objective, doesn't that mean it should fall somewhere between fully subjective and fully objective? I.e., on a spectrum?


I did not say that it is not fully subjective. :) In fact, I was pointing out that YOU did not say that.

I see that I need to repeat your words back for you again


You claim is that it IS NOT objective.
You claim is that it IS subjective.
Last edited by SweetPea on Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Canadian Skeptic
Regular Poster
Posts: 947
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Skeptics need to embrace conscious experience more

Postby Canadian Skeptic » Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:38 pm

SweetPea wrote:I did not say that it is not fully subjective. :) In fact, I was pointing out that YOU did not say that.


Actually, I said it was "a little subjective" and "not much subjective." I apologize if you can't infer "not fully subjective" from those two points. Clearly, you're lying to get yourself out of a bind. Don't worry though, I have your rat hole covered.

Canadian Skeptic wrote:It's impossible to be either fully objective (true belief) or, I suspect, fully subjective (true guess)


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest