Subjectivity

[Enki]

It is not about words, meanings and definitions. Its not about information. Its about perception.

Not sure exactly how you are using the word 'perception' here. Do you mean the idea of becoming aware of something through the senses or do you mean the idea of how one regards something, one's attitude to something?

Actually both interpretations run the risk of believing something because it 'seems' right to the individual concerned, and this, on its own, is not necessarily any guide to how accurate it reflects any reality. Changing one's perception, even if it takes a lifetime, might simply lead down an error strewn path. I would suggest that absorbing information and attempting understanding, using all the available tools at our disposal, are necessary essentials to enlightened perception. 

[jeremyp]

It is not about words, meanings and definitions. Its not about information. Its about perception.

What is perception if not information?

[ekim]

Not sure exactly how you are using the word 'perception' here. Do you mean the idea of becoming aware of something through the senses or do you mean the idea of how one regards something, one's attitude to something?

Actually both interpretations run the risk of believing something because it 'seems' right to the individual concerned, and this, on its own, is not necessarily any guide to how accurate it reflects any reality. Changing one's perception, even if it takes a lifetime, might simply lead down an error strewn path. I would suggest that absorbing information and attempting understanding, using all the available tools at our disposal, are necessary essentials to enlightened perception.

I'm not sure what Sriram means but there is a Sanskrit word used in Vedanta philosophy 'Satchitananda' which is the union of three words loosely translated as 'Being, consciousness, bliss' which is said to be the reality of the subject 'I',  and the variety of yogas are to help reveal that 'reality'.  It is not the objective 'reality' which our senses and their technological extensions examine, nor is it the subjective 'reality' formed by the mind as information, theories, models, concepts, emotions etc. as a means of understanding the objective.

[Sriram]

Information is data. Perception is the software we use to process the data.  The same data can be processed and analysed in different ways depending on the software we use. Similarly the same information can be understood differently depending on our perception.

Merely adding more and more data does not improve the quality of the output.  Similarly, merely adding more and more information does not add to the quality of our understanding.

With added wisdom even very little information can make our understanding very profound. With limited wisdom even lots of information can be understood in a mundane manner. 

[torridon]

I think that is broadly right, in so far as perception is a personal, subjective, interpretation of inbound information. There is no way to know if my perception of blue is the same experience as your perception of blue.   Nicely exemplified by the dress that broke the internet in 2015.

Perception is information processing and as every brain is unique, we all process the same data slightly differently.

[Sriram]

In this thread I have tried to bring out the importance of subjective perceptions. All our understanding is subjective and dependent on our senses, brain structure and so on. If we had been like viruses or electrons our view of the world would be completely different. 

What we call objective reality is nothing but a collective subjectivity.

It is Consciousness that forms the basis of our lives....and probably of the universe as a whole. Many modern ideas in science and philosophy (that I have indicated in 'the soul' thread)  seem to point to that.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

In another thread, torridon has linked an article that talks of 'Adequate Determinism'.  He has quoted this article to make his point that the  probabilistic nature of quantum reality does not affect the macroworld. Therefore for all practical purposes, (according to him) we can consider all  macro phenomena as deterministic.
 
I am quoting from the article....

**************

"Adequate Determinism is the kind of determinism we have in the world. It is a statistical determinism, where the statistics are near to certainty for large macroscopic objects. Adequate Determinism also includes indeterminism, an irreducible property of the microscopic quantum world..

We are happy to agree with scientists and philosophers who feel that quantum effects are for the most part negligible in the macroscopic world. We particularly agree that they are negligible when considering the causally determined will and the causally determined actions set in motion by decisions of that will.

In particular, adequate or statistical determinism is all that determinist philosophers ever wanted or needed for moral responsibility.

Quantum chance is primarily needed to generate unpredictable and "free" alternative possibilities for action.

Adequate determinism gives compatibilists the kind of free will that they need and that they say they want, namely the causal connection between motives, feelings, reason, character, values, etc. and the actions chosen from freely generated possibilities.

However, quantum mechanics is not negligible in some important cases. We know that quantum indeterminacy exists in the world. Sometimes microsopic indeterminism is amplified to produce unpredictable and uncaused events that show up in the macroscopic world to break the causal chains we normally see in adequate or statistical determinism.

But it is random events that drive the creation of new species in biology and we can show that they underlie all creativity, all actions that bring new information into the universe, whether the formation of stars and galaxies or the writing of a new play.

Adequate determinism is one of the critical requirements for free will."

**************

The article seems to state clearly that random events (that I have discussed earlier) underlie all creativity including creating of new species and formation of stars.

I have argued that so called 'random' events (not truly random) could be the means by which some higher consciousness could be directing the course of events in the world.

The article also seems to state that ....."Adequate determinism gives compatibilists the kind of free will that they need and that they say they want, namely the causal connection between motives, feelings, reason, character, values, etc. and the actions chosen from freely generated possibilities".....which clearly favors free will.

Any comments or clarifications on that?

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

I have argued that so called 'random' events (not truly random) could be the means by which some higher consciousness could be directing the course of events in the world.

I don't see how or why we would interpret something apparently random as being evidence of purpose.  Random would suggest the opposite of purposefullness.  To justify the claim of purpose, we would expect to see apparent organisation or pattern in unexplained events, not randomness.

[Sriram]

I don't see how or why we would interpret something apparently random as being evidence of purpose.  Random would suggest the opposite of purposefullness.  To justify the claim of purpose, we would expect to see apparent organisation or pattern in unexplained events, not randomness.

You have agreed that randomness may not be truly random.  Random is just a term scientists use to 'explain' what they don't understand. And because they are petrified of ascribing any purpose or intelligence behind such events....they like to call it 'random'.

Secondly, we do see organisation and pattern in nature that is far beyond randomness. That is obvious.  The article above also talks of 'randomness' being responsible for creativity and formation of stars etc.

Any clarification about free will and the idea of adequate determination being a critical requirement for free will?

[Stranger]

Sriram, you really should provide a link to sites you quote from: Adequate (or Statistical) Determinism

Random is just a term scientists use to 'explain' what they don't understand. And because they are petrified of ascribing any purpose or intelligence behind such events....they like to call it 'random'.

This is untrue - and a silly, rather childish, misrepresentation.

Secondly, we do see organisation and pattern in nature that is far beyond randomness. That is obvious.

That's because of adequate determinism - or actual determinism. Whether there is genuine randomness in nature is an open question.

The article above also talks of 'randomness' being responsible for creativity and formation of stars etc.

I've only looked at a few pages but they seem to be suggesting that randomness is the source of new information. This is technically true. A truly random event generates new information (but not if it isn't actually random). Whether this is possible is debatable, it depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. I think they're in a minority in thinking it is necessary for anything we observe.

Any clarification about free will and the idea of adequate determination being a critical requirement for free will?

The site seems to be presenting a two stage model of free will, which requires adequate determination (which would be required for any purposeful thought at all) and true randomness to generate new information for a deterministic consideration/filtering process. Even if we were to accept the model, I can see no reason why the randomness would need to be true randomness, rather than simply random for practical purposes.

[torridon]

You have agreed that randomness may not be truly random.  Random is just a term scientists use to 'explain' what they don't understand. And because they are petrified of ascribing any purpose or intelligence behind such events....they like to call it 'random'.

That's rather silly.  If something appears to be random, that is the reason why we would say 'it appears to be random'.  Your invention of being 'petrified' is spurious and bizarre.  If we see unexplained patterns then that would call for an explanation, but random is the opposite. It is the antithesis of purpose.

[Sriram]

That's rather silly.  If something appears to be random, that is the reason why we would say 'it appears to be random'.  Your invention of being 'petrified' is spurious and bizarre.  If we see unexplained patterns then that would call for an explanation, but random is the opposite. It is the antithesis of purpose.

You don't see any pattern in Nature?!   Survival instinct, reproduction instinct, parental instinct, complexity, billions of species, interdependent eco-system........!!!!?

[Stranger]

You don't see any pattern in Nature?!   Survival instinct, reproduction instinct, parental instinct, complexity, billions of species, interdependent eco-system........!!!!?

We have a good explanation for those things: they are the results of natural selection acting on (effectively) random variation.

[torridon]

You don't see any pattern in Nature?!   Survival instinct, reproduction instinct, parental instinct, complexity, billions of species, interdependent eco-system........!!!!?

No I'm saying there is no pattern in random things. This is definitional. There are patterns in Nature, but not in any random or pseudo random input into Nature. The patterns in Nature are a consequence of determinism.

[Sriram]

No I'm saying there is no pattern in random things. This is definitional. There are patterns in Nature, but not in any random or pseudo random input into Nature. The patterns in Nature are a consequence of determinism.

What?!! You are labeling something as random to begin with. Then you say random events cannot have a pattern and therefore there is no pattern?!! 

It should be the other way around.  To being with do we see a pattern in nature? Yes!  Can patterns be caused by random events? No! So wherever we find a pattern, there can be no random events at all. Even all those events for which we cannot find a cause, cannot be truly random. There has to be a cause that we don't currently understand.

[Stranger]

It should be the other way around.  To being with do we see a pattern in nature? Yes!  Can patterns be caused by random events? No! So wherever we find a pattern, there can be no random events at all. Even all those events for which we cannot find a cause, cannot be truly random. There has to be a cause that we don't currently understand.

Wow - a glaring non sequitur for Xmas morning. That simply doesn't follow.

The standard formulation of quantum mechanics (and quantum field theory) assumes genuine randomness and yet describes the world with great accuracy. Even if they are wrong, they provide a mathematical model of a world that includes truly random events but still displays the patterns we observe in ours.