Subjectivity

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

It is generally agreed by philosophers and thinkers since ancient times, that our objective understanding of the world is limited by our senses, our brain configuration and so on. In recent times even some scientists are beginning to accept this as a fact of life. 

In other words,our objective understanding of the world has natural boundaries and limitations that cannot be surmounted (even with the help of technology).  Our 'understanding' of the world can therefore be seen as illusionary.  There could be many hidden aspects of reality that are outside our capabilities and our view of the world could be like shadows on a wall. 

However, contrary to scientific thinking (until recently) religious/spiritual people have long understood that while the objective world could be illusionary, we can access certain underlying aspects of reality through internal mechanisms such as introspection, mind control and so on.  It has long been understood that delving into our inner world is more revealing and fulfilling than all the discoveries we make of the external world.

Some people of  science  however consider subjective  aspects of life as mere imagination and mental imagery created by the brain, which are of no importance in understanding reality.   This is a mistake.

No doubt, our imagination, instinctive impulses, desires and so on can create significant noise and clutter that can be an impediment to inner development. This is why exercises such as Yoga, meditations, rituals and prayers are prescribed so that the clutter and noise can be reduced and we can undertake the inner journey meaningfully.

That our subjective aspects can be important (in fact more important than objective aspects) is now beginning to be realized by some people of science. Please refer to my thread on panpsychism, the hard problem of Consciousness and IIT. 

Just some thoughts.

Cheers

Sriram

[SteveH]

Nice try, but we understand, more or less, how our view of the world is affected by the limitations of out senses, and scientists can allow for it.  Whatever the limitations, if there not only is not nor even logically can be any way of proving a theory false, then that theory is useless and can be ignored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Stranger]

It is generally agreed by philosophers and thinkers since ancient times, that our objective understanding of the world is limited by our senses, our brain configuration and so on. In recent times even some scientists are beginning to accept this as a fact of life. 

What scientists and what exactly have they said?

Our 'understanding' of the world can therefore be seen as illusionary.

I don't think anybody would argue that it is complete but to claim that the understanding we do have is illusionary is absurd. The device you're reading this on is good evidence that it isn't.

However, contrary to scientific thinking (until recently) religious/spiritual people have long understood that while the objective world could be illusionary...

The thing about the objective world is that it is shared (intersubjective) and inescapable. If it isn't 'real', it might as well be.

...we can access certain underlying aspects of reality through internal mechanisms such as introspection, mind control and so on.  It has long been understood that delving into our inner world is more revealing and fulfilling than all the discoveries we make of the external world.

Some people of  science  however consider subjective  aspects of life as mere imagination and mental imagery created by the brain, which are of no importance in understanding reality.   This is a mistake.

The problem with anything subjective, is that, even if it was a great insight into the nature of reality, we would have no way of knowing it was unless there was some way to objectively test it.

That our subjective aspects can be important (in fact more important than objective aspects) is now beginning to be realized by some people of science. Please refer to my thread on panpsychism, the hard problem of Consciousness and IIT. 

I really don't know what you think this has to do with it. From what I've read about IIT, for example, it is a conjecture that consciousness is the result of integrated information, which has an exact, objective mathematical definition. Given an information processing system, you can (in principle at least) calculate it.

[jeremyp]

However, contrary to scientific thinking (until recently) religious/spiritual people have long understood that while the objective world could be illusionary, we can access certain underlying aspects of reality through internal mechanisms such as introspection, mind control and so on.  It has long been understood that delving into our inner world is more revealing and fulfilling than all the discoveries we make of the external world.

That's complete nonsense. Firstly, when religious people do their "introspection and mind control" they all seem to come up with different answers.

Secondly, no amount of introspection and mind control will ever come up with something as useful as, say, a vaccine. What could be more fulfilling than saving the lives of millions of people through a medical advance. Can you point to anything a religionist has discovered through mind control and introspection that was as fulfilling as Dr John Snow's removal of the handle from a water pump in London in 1854?

[Sriram]

You guys will have to remove your 'mundane hats' and wear a more philosophical one.

I am not saying that objective reality does not exist in some form to satisfy our requirements.  I am saying that the deeper aspects of life cannot be understood through mere objective means. They can only be understood through inner reflection because the ultimate reality (as far as we are concerned) is Consciousness.

Higher levels of Consciousness cannot be understood objectively. It has to be realized subjectively.  We are consciousness. 

[Stranger]

You guys will have to remove your 'mundane hats' and wear a more philosophical one.

Philosophy generally involves logic. Something your vague, hand-waving waffle seems to totally lack.

I am not saying that objective reality does not exist in some form to satisfy our requirements.  I am saying that the deeper aspects of life cannot be understood through mere objective means. They can only be understood through inner reflection because the ultimate reality (as far as we are concerned) is Consciousness.

Higher levels of Consciousness cannot be understood objectively. It has to be realized subjectively.  We are consciousness.

How about an actual example of what you mean?

Also, still waiting for you to say which scientists you were referring to in the OP and what they said.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

A surprisingly relevant video from none other than......Richard Dawkins....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

A surprisingly relevant video from none other than......Richard Dawkins....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

What's it got to do with subjectivity?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

As Dawkins quotes....'the world is not just queerer than we think, it is queerer than we can think'.....which makes a point about our limitations.  Secondly our 'understanding' of the external world of cosmology, subatomic world and so on are of very little  significance to us in our day to day life and our death. While medical research could be of some importance, the Law of Diminishing Returns probably works here also.

Philosophically speaking, the idea of subjective experiences and motivations is important because it introduces the element of 'randomness' that is so important to life and our development. This so called 'randomness' works from within ourselves and our DNA.  This is where the idea of Consciousness being independent of our body is important.
 
Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

As Dawkins quotes....'the world is not just queerer than we think, it is queerer than we can think'.....which makes a point about our limitations.  Secondly our 'understanding' of the external world of cosmology, subatomic world and so on are of very little  significance to us in our day to day life and our death. While medical research could be of some importance, the Law of Diminishing Returns probably works here also.

Quantum mechanics has endless applications including in semiconductor design. The whole of modern electronics depends on our understanding of the subatomic world. The GPS system also depends on special and general relativity (time dilation).

Philosophically speaking, the idea of subjective experiences and motivations is important because it introduces the element of 'randomness' that is so important to life and our development.

What element of randomness?

This so called 'randomness' works from within ourselves and our DNA.

What are you talking about? Do you mean mutations (random for practical purposes) and evolution?

This is where the idea of Consciousness being independent of our body is important.

There is no evidence that consciousness is independent of our brains and even if it was, what's it got to do with the the rest of what you said?

[SteveH]

Hi everyone,

As Dawkins quotes....'the world is not just queerer than we think, it is queerer than we can think'.

Hi to you too. That was JBS Haldane, the geneticist and evolutionary biologist, who was much given to memorable quotes. His exact words were "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." He also came up with the memorable answer "rabbits in the pre-cambrian", when asked what would falsify the theory of evolution, and "an inordinate fondness for beetles", when asked what his study of biology indicated about the nature of God (he was an atheist).

[jeremyp]

You guys will have to remove your 'mundane hats' and wear a more philosophical one.

There's nothing mundane about saving people's lives.

I am saying that the deeper aspects of life cannot be understood through mere objective means. They can only be understood through inner reflection because the ultimate reality (as far as we are concerned) is Consciousness.

And I'm saying it's all bollocks because different people come up with different ultimate realities when they do their inner reflection thing.

Higher levels of Consciousness cannot be understood objectively. It has to be realized subjectively.  We are consciousness.

That's the same as saying higher consciousness cannot be understood.

Maybe you'd like to start by defining higher consciousness in a non bullshit New Agey way.

[jeremyp]

Hi everyone,

As Dawkins quotes....'the world is not just queerer than we think, it is queerer than we can think'..

That's JBS Haldane.

...which makes a point about our limitations.

Which you seem determined to ignore.

[Dicky Underpants]

You guys will have to remove your 'mundane hats' and wear a more philosophical one.

I am not saying that objective reality does not exist in some form to satisfy our requirements.  I am saying that the deeper aspects of life cannot be understood through mere objective means. They can only be understood through inner reflection because the ultimate reality (as far as we are concerned) is Consciousness.

Higher levels of Consciousness cannot be understood objectively. It has to be realized subjectively.  We are consciousness.

There was a time when I thought the discipline of phenomenology (the 'scientific' analysis of subjective states) might yield some positive results. If there were to be found throughout the world descriptions of unusual mental states which were practically identical in all important respects, then we might be on to something. But as Jeremy states, this investigation of inner states of mind reveals more differences than similarities. I can't begin to speculate how you would interpret the visions of Hildegard of Bingen in some universalist sense which would be meaningful to a Hindu.

[SteveH]

That's JBS Haldane.

Beat you.

[Sriram]

There was a time when I thought the discipline of phenomenology (the 'scientific' analysis of subjective states) might yield some positive results. If there were to be found throughout the world descriptions of unusual mental states which were practically identical in all important respects, then we might be on to something. But as Jeremy states, this investigation of inner states of mind reveals more differences than similarities. I can't begin to speculate how you would interpret the visions of Hildegard of Bingen in some universalist sense which would be meaningful to a Hindu.

As I have said....the mind is very complex and has many layers.  Some layers are related to our basic instincts, some layers are  related to our emotions and imagination. Some layers are related to our intellect. Some layers go beyond the intellect. It works like a operating system, application software, connects to the internet and many other things.

Only by controlling the various layers can we connect to the inner most layers that take us beyond the ego personality.

[Sriram]

That's JBS Haldane.
Which you seem determined to ignore.

I know Dawkins was quoting Haldane.  Why is that important?

The higher consciousness cannot be defined except as something that takes our mind outside the ego related personality.

[jeremyp]

I know Dawkins was quoting Haldane.  Why is that important?

I think it is important to try to get attributions right for your quotes.

The higher consciousness cannot be defined except as something that takes our mind outside the ego related personality.

Meaningless nonsense.

[Sriram]

I think it is important to try to get attributions right for your quotes.
Meaningless nonsense.

What we don't understand is always meaningless nonsense!

[jeremyp]

What we don't understand is always meaningless nonsense!

So the first step to understanding is defining "higher consciousness" properly.

[Sriram]

So the first step to understanding is defining "higher consciousness" properly.

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

[Udayana]

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

In that, case everyone can just get on with it - what is there to talk about?

In fact, without words, meanings, definitions how can anyone talk about it?

[Sriram]

In that, case everyone can just get on with it - what is there to talk about?

In fact, without words, meanings, definitions how can anyone talk about it?

Get on with what? Changing ones perception?!  That is the most difficult thing to do.

Taking in information is easy.   Understanding science is easy. But changing ones perception is very difficult and often takes a lifetime.

[Stranger]

Taking in information is easy.   Understanding science is easy.

Why do you find both so difficult then?

Actually understanding much of science isn't easy. Spouting vague and apparently meaningless nonsense, and then not answering questions or properly explaining yourself, is easy.

[BeRational]

Get on with what? Changing ones perception?!  That is the most difficult thing to do.

Taking in information is easy.   Understanding science is easy. But changing ones perception is very difficult and often takes a lifetime.

Do you understand QM?

Are you the only person on the planet that does?