8 ms·

Scientific materialism is merely an objectivity bias within the subject-object problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object_problem http://en.w

Scientific materialism is merely an objectivity bias within the subject-object problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object_problem) Because, you see, if we can only objectively measure things scientifically with instruments then there can be no subjectivity because we can't see it on any instrument! Therefore anybody who continues to insist that it does exist falls into the category of "woo woo," "magical thinking", or "superstitious". And those anti-scientific stances can only lead down the slippery slope into any of those pitfalls--or worse yet--fundamentalism (because there is just as much evidence for a mythical god as there is subjectivity... or unicorns for that matter... or spaghetti monsters...etc)! So its easy to lump all that is non-objective into the same category as unicorns since we cannot measure any of it. /caricature This is a fallacy of absolutistic thinking and it is rampant.

gnaritas 13y ago
That was about as clear as mud.
- writtles 13y ago
  This one always stumps people. Your subjective experience is unique to yourself. Your Self (your personal subjective experience -- which is denied by the scientific materialists) exists as such. And we can logically conclude that through the following mental exercise: In the future is a cloning device. You step in and your body and brain are cloned down to the last electron. All of your memories, scars and epigenetics are cloned here as well. Now this is key here: In all Objective sense, your clone is you. There are no distinction between you and your clone and nobody can tell who is who. You both know yourself to be you and no one would be the wiser if you went and lived in a foreign country under a different name and your clone stays back and lives your life for you. Well nobody except YOU would know. You see, to you that clone is another person that you can talk to and shake hands with. Even though a brain scan will reveal the same thought patterns between you two, you will never literally see through the clone's eyes. If the clone dies, you go on just fine, but if you die... It's over even though your perfect clone goes on. So therein lies the one distinct difference between you and your clone and that is YOUR subjective experience makes you YOU. So the problem is is that this subjective experience has no real evidence of its existence, so it doesn't exist right? Just like fairies don't exist, right? And THAT is the absolutistic mindset of the scientific materialist.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    I'm not stumped, your point was simply not clear. Your subjective experience is unique to yourself. Correct. Your Self (your personal subjective experience -- which is denied by the scientific materialists) I dispute that claim, science does not deny subjective experience nor does materialism; you've simply misunderstood them. So the problem is is that this subjective experience has no real evidence of its existence False. so it doesn't exist right? Just like fairies don't exist, right? And THAT is the absolutistic mindset of the scientific materialist. You're confused, materialists don't deny subjective experience, they deny subjective reality and they are correct in doing so. There is an objective reality, and there is your brain's limited interpretations of that reality that create your own personal subjective experience of that reality. Your subjective experience is not a thing (i.e. physical) that can exist or not, it's simply your limited interpretation of reality. Your subjective experience, in the real world, is just patterns of electrical signals in your brain, that's what actually exist. Your subjective experiences exist much as a thought exists, as electrical patterns in your brain.
    - writtles 13y ago
      Semantics. Definitions or not you can't get around the issue by specifying a new term "Subjective reality" You have made no distinction between the two anyways and here's why: * ...subjective experience is not a thing (i.e. physical) that can exist or not, it's simply your limited interpretation of reality."* So how's that different than my "subjective reality" -- that isn't really a thing either. And to hammer the confusion further you say: * Your subjective experience, in the real world, is just patterns of electrical signals in your brain, that's what actually exist* So my subjective experience IS an objective phenomenon and nothing more? If its something more than what we can measure "in the real world" then what is the part that is "more"? It doesn't exist right? I can only logically conclude that pure Subjective Experience doesn't exist! As scientific materialism has always claimed.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        Definitions or not you can't get around the issue by specifying a new term "Subjective reality" Not a new term, it's vital to understand the distinction between subjective experience and subjective reality to even make sense of a conversation like this. They are vastly different things. So how's that different than my "subjective reality" -- that isn't really a thing either. Subjective experiences happen in objective reality. Color and taste are entirely subjective things that don't exist in reality. However, there exists a measurable testable objective reality that exists independently of your subjective experiences. There are also those who believe in subjective reality, i.e. they believe consciousness somehow creates reality itself and what you think affects reality itself, i.e. the book "The Secret". So my subjective experience IS an objective phenomenon and nothing more? Obviously, and there exists no evidence anywhere that this isn't the case. Your brain is a machine, not a magic connection between your body and some other reality where your mind resides. If its something more than what we can measure "in the real world" then what is the part that is "more"? It doesn't exist right? It's not something more, so talking about it's existence is moot; your subjective experience exists in the same way your memories exist, as coded patterns in your neurons. There's no such thing as "exists outside the real world" as the very definition of the word exists is have objective reality or being. To say "exists outside the real world" is an utterly meaningless statement. I can only logically conclude that pure Subjective Experience doesn't exist! As scientific materialism has always claimed. Scientific materialism makes no such claim. Once again, subjective experience happens, it's not a thing, it's an event in your mind. Science does not deny it. Science denies subjective reality, i.e. the notion that your impression of the world is reality and isn't just a personal delusion. The Secret is a popular book that sells the idea of subjective realities as fact, i.e. what you think affects and changes reality itself. It is of course complete and utter nonsense written to separate fools from their money.

gnaritas 13y ago

That was about as clear as mud.

writtles 13y ago
This one always stumps people. Your subjective experience is unique to yourself. Your Self (your personal subjective experience -- which is denied by the scientific materialists) exists as such. And we can logically conclude that through the following mental exercise: In the future is a cloning device. You step in and your body and brain are cloned down to the last electron. All of your memories, scars and epigenetics are cloned here as well. Now this is key here: In all Objective sense, your clone is you. There are no distinction between you and your clone and nobody can tell who is who. You both know yourself to be you and no one would be the wiser if you went and lived in a foreign country under a different name and your clone stays back and lives your life for you. Well nobody except YOU would know. You see, to you that clone is another person that you can talk to and shake hands with. Even though a brain scan will reveal the same thought patterns between you two, you will never literally see through the clone's eyes. If the clone dies, you go on just fine, but if you die... It's over even though your perfect clone goes on. So therein lies the one distinct difference between you and your clone and that is YOUR subjective experience makes you YOU. So the problem is is that this subjective experience has no real evidence of its existence, so it doesn't exist right? Just like fairies don't exist, right? And THAT is the absolutistic mindset of the scientific materialist.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  I'm not stumped, your point was simply not clear. Your subjective experience is unique to yourself. Correct. Your Self (your personal subjective experience -- which is denied by the scientific materialists) I dispute that claim, science does not deny subjective experience nor does materialism; you've simply misunderstood them. So the problem is is that this subjective experience has no real evidence of its existence False. so it doesn't exist right? Just like fairies don't exist, right? And THAT is the absolutistic mindset of the scientific materialist. You're confused, materialists don't deny subjective experience, they deny subjective reality and they are correct in doing so. There is an objective reality, and there is your brain's limited interpretations of that reality that create your own personal subjective experience of that reality. Your subjective experience is not a thing (i.e. physical) that can exist or not, it's simply your limited interpretation of reality. Your subjective experience, in the real world, is just patterns of electrical signals in your brain, that's what actually exist. Your subjective experiences exist much as a thought exists, as electrical patterns in your brain.
  - writtles 13y ago
    Semantics. Definitions or not you can't get around the issue by specifying a new term "Subjective reality" You have made no distinction between the two anyways and here's why: * ...subjective experience is not a thing (i.e. physical) that can exist or not, it's simply your limited interpretation of reality."* So how's that different than my "subjective reality" -- that isn't really a thing either. And to hammer the confusion further you say: * Your subjective experience, in the real world, is just patterns of electrical signals in your brain, that's what actually exist* So my subjective experience IS an objective phenomenon and nothing more? If its something more than what we can measure "in the real world" then what is the part that is "more"? It doesn't exist right? I can only logically conclude that pure Subjective Experience doesn't exist! As scientific materialism has always claimed.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      Definitions or not you can't get around the issue by specifying a new term "Subjective reality" Not a new term, it's vital to understand the distinction between subjective experience and subjective reality to even make sense of a conversation like this. They are vastly different things. So how's that different than my "subjective reality" -- that isn't really a thing either. Subjective experiences happen in objective reality. Color and taste are entirely subjective things that don't exist in reality. However, there exists a measurable testable objective reality that exists independently of your subjective experiences. There are also those who believe in subjective reality, i.e. they believe consciousness somehow creates reality itself and what you think affects reality itself, i.e. the book "The Secret". So my subjective experience IS an objective phenomenon and nothing more? Obviously, and there exists no evidence anywhere that this isn't the case. Your brain is a machine, not a magic connection between your body and some other reality where your mind resides. If its something more than what we can measure "in the real world" then what is the part that is "more"? It doesn't exist right? It's not something more, so talking about it's existence is moot; your subjective experience exists in the same way your memories exist, as coded patterns in your neurons. There's no such thing as "exists outside the real world" as the very definition of the word exists is have objective reality or being. To say "exists outside the real world" is an utterly meaningless statement. I can only logically conclude that pure Subjective Experience doesn't exist! As scientific materialism has always claimed. Scientific materialism makes no such claim. Once again, subjective experience happens, it's not a thing, it's an event in your mind. Science does not deny it. Science denies subjective reality, i.e. the notion that your impression of the world is reality and isn't just a personal delusion. The Secret is a popular book that sells the idea of subjective realities as fact, i.e. what you think affects and changes reality itself. It is of course complete and utter nonsense written to separate fools from their money.