Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 07:33am PT
|
I think I’m a bit lost in this conversation as it relates to the topic of the thread.
It seems that folks are arguing about physical things and that (or how) those things give rise to phenomena.
It’s as though there’s a rubber band or strange attractor or unavoidable bias that continues to pull understanding back to the basic assumption over and over again: brain (components) = mind (subjectivity).
What Is Mind? Perhaps if folks could just look at their own subjectivity, rather than immediately say how “it” operates, then maybe the thread could make some headway. What are, for example, the pieces of subjectivity that can be noted? Can subjectivity or mind be deconstructed as one might with a painting or a car *without* immediately claiming how parts work?
Take the image of a painting or sculpture. There could be: line, color, image, borders, impression, paint, etc. Just plain vanilla everyday observations without the technical explanations (which tend to assume that people know what they’re talking about).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 07:43am PT
|
Exactly ^^^^
The gross materialists are always clueless ultimately and always revert to the incomplete defective gross physical and subtle material knowledge.
They always miss the most important knowledge of the self itself.
They have no real clue to the self and life itself and thus are blind leading the blind stabbing into the dark .......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 09:08am PT
|
My argument here is simply that the immeasurable quality inherent in subjectivity is often cause for, at least in a materialist sense, dismissal. In the arts and humanities I hear this often. While there are subjective elements in these areas, there are also fundamentally objective qualities that are functions of, and demonstrated by, consensus. So when someone says well color is whatever you want it to be and likely determined by culture rather than a reality in and of itself (which can be demonstrated quite easily with a prism) I've just got to respond. Whatever mind is I certainly don't think it's brain.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 17, 2018 - 09:30am PT
|
Second, while people with specific genes are hosts to various mental conditions, what evidence is there, anywhere on the face of the earth, that suggests any gene causes, in a determined way, specific content (colors of numbers, say) in any human?
This is what whole genome sequencing could begin to shed light on.
I think what you mean is that the genome sequencing could shed light on the arising of the condition, not what the condition would "create' in terms of specific subjective content.
-
Said Ed: Interesting comment, as "our experience" is subjective, as Largo has argued, experience is something we have that is unique to us.
---
I'm unclear on how talking about subjectivity AS subjectivity is an "argument." That is, "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
Who here is going to argue that their experience is not itself subjective, rather it is, itself, an external object or phenomenon off of which we can directly pull a measurement?
Does the cognitive act of assigning words and contrasting the content of our experience and arriving at a concensus per shared phenomenal content - does that make subjectivity itself an objective phenomenon? Or is that simply "objectifying." Conversely, does experiencing eating a peach make the peach itself a subjective phenomenon?
Note that in experience, the division line between subjective and objective is fluid.
Some would say that because we can posit "things" out there, they have an independent existence, that there is a stand-alone objective universe external to observation.
Mike has often raised the issue that we can't fully explain anything. Many don't like to hear that, but I suspect they don't appreciate what he is saying.
What gets passed on as "explanations" are really just descriptions of what DOES happen, and in certain cases we can predict with great accuracy that X will follow Y. Our lives depend on us doing so. When I turn my steering wheel to the left my car goes left EVERY TIME. But every explanation I can come up with the explain why this happens, is just a description of what happens. To explain would require that we can isolate out, at least in theory, causal factors that are fully determined for X and only X to happen. For example, when this physical sequence takes place, we will see blue and only blue owing to fully determined causes, causes that determine I will only and CAN only see blue. But note there is nothing whatsoever in the biological sequence that fits that bill.
The idea that a law "governs" the outcome of events is also misleading because no law is an external physical object or phenomenon that itself exerts a force on reality. Every law - my old science prof used to pound into our brains - was derived from direct observation of WHAT HAPPENS. When certain conditions are present, then ONLY X can happen.
The mistake is to think that the law, which describes the uniform regularity of X happening when the conditions are right, does not explain WHY that happens, rather that it DOES happen.
In terms of mind, as previously mentioned, complexity, processing speed, structure, wiring, electrochemical stirrings, etc., all describe functional aspects of the brain we can directly observe. But none of these processes are determined causes from which subjectivity and only subjectivity can arise.
Mike's point, if I am reading him correctly, is that we can describe the process of reality unfolding in some cases with extreme accuracy and predict WHAT will happen, but the description of the process is not itself an explanation.
I'm off the Yosemite to film for a week. Then off to Carbondale to teach a writer's symposium for another week. Enjoy your June, amigos!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 09:43am PT
|
I think what you mean is that the genome sequencing could shed light on the arising of the condition, not what the condition would "create' in terms of specific subjective content.
Yes. But as a picture of the condition is built up bit by bit we could learn what the condition would create in terms of specific subjective content. We might never satisfy your particular criteria for understanding subjective content.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 10:18am PT
|
Following up:
Alfred Tarski and the Liar Paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox#Alfred_Tarski
cyberbot II
Mathematics studies 'model theory' that creates models of certain sets of axioms. Contradictory axioms can not be modeled. But paradoxical statements could be modeled. For instance, the axiom of choice produces the Tarski paradox that describes how a solid ball can be taken apart in a finite number of sets and those finite number of sets can be put together (in a different way) to create two solid balls of equal volume as the one we start with. This is not 'strange', but a consequence of the axiom of choice, if it is assumed to hold in the standard model of geometry. It is only our intuition that does not conform with the logic of a statement. It is our intuition that does not allow us to agree with the logic of certain things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIrresistible_force_paradox
Raymond Smullyan:
Can you have both an irresistible force and an immovable object?
Yes, but not in the same universe.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 11:23am PT
|
But none of these processes are determined causes from which subjectivity and only subjectivity can arise.
which begs the sharpening up of what is "subjective"
and Paul fears this dismisses his life's work as "irrelevant" or somehow less relevant than the association with the "objective"
The way I think about it (and it is fun to see Largo argue against himself when I bring up his points) the entirety of our lives is a unique set of experiences. How we perceive these experiences depend a lot on our own specific body build (down to our genetic makeup) and the way we are "taught" to interpret these experiences. This not only affects our immediate response to the experiences, but our memory of the experiences.
Given that genetics governs the physical composition of every living individual (along with the resource availability to make the "build") and that the number of combinations possible for a particular individual is essentially infinite when compared to the total number of individuals that could possibly exist, then there is ample room for individual variability.
Further, healthy gene pools are diverse gene pools, and this guarantees a broad spectrum of physical bodies.
So subjective, meaning specific to an individual, is the rule.
Certainly for humans we can compare our experiences, and find places where they are in general agreement, and thus build a sense of what is "objective" or even that there may be some "objective" reality "out there." Of course this gets tied up in philosophical knots which are not resolved over the course of time they have been discussed.
However, science as a philosophy, opted out of the discussion, and came up with some practical rules for approaching "objective" reality which, today, form the most successful approach, at least in terms of technology development largely based on the scientific understanding of that "objective" reality.
So it is hard to understand how this "sub"/"ob"-jective dichotomy becomes a razor on which to judge the effectiveness of a scientific understanding of "mind." The large part of what constitutes a "subjective experience" is well within the domain of scientific methods, and the observation that a persons ability to experience, subjectively, ends with the end of that individual's life, certainly point to roots in a physical explanation.
The existence of the subjective by no means excludes a scientific explanation.
And as Paul has argued, the variability of sensory perception is no reason to exclude the "objective truth" of the trichromatic color theory, apparently agreed upon by all cultures for all times by all individuals, in all arts.
Now MikeL has pleaded that we not forget that, after all, this whole notion of "objective truth" is merely a social convention based on consensus among biased agents. And as many who argue this, they have to make exception, as Largo also does, for those things that science "does well" and those things that science "can not explain."
And then also feign ignorance on where the boarder should be drawn between things science can explain and things it cannot, while arguing passionately that science "cannot" explain "mind."
Science, of course, has its own way of telling whether or not it can explain something, and that is through the prediction/test methodology it has employed successfully in getting to where it is now in our understanding of "objective reality." But of course, this has no such boundary, the boundary that does exist is between what is known and what is unknown. There is no scientific comment on what is "unknowable," the history of such pronouncements are almost all wrong (I write "almost" because I can't come up with an example, but admit the possibility that one might exist).
Examples of this: what was the universe like before the "Big Bang" (now the subject of much research), what is the energy source that powers the Sun (and other stars), what is the origin of man, etc. An example of such a "limits to knowledge" is "what is the nature of the physical universe at the Planck scale?" for which we currently have no answer. I am optimistic that young physicists will be able to recast that question into a physically accessible form.
Now we also run into this interesting phrase:
"the exception that proves the rule"
which I am not sure how it is applied, but it would be great to delve into the details vis-a-vis our discussion of color. In one sense, having build a theory of color based on our consensus trichromatic perception, we find that any subjective variance is irrelevant, trivially. That is, individuals who are "other-chromatic" would agree with that color theory for those who are "trichromatic" even though their subjective experience of color is different. So those exception are found not to challenge that theory of color.
But it is interesting and relevant to this discussion as to what constitutes a "theory of color" in so much that it has both physical and perceptual components, that they all play on our cultural expressions of color, certainly in art, and that "mind" has something to do with it, at least as far as perception is concerned.
And going back to a MikeL criticism, the trichromatic bias of the consensus stacks the deck in terms of developing a "true, universal theory of color."
Oddly, this throws us back to discussing physical processes and their measurable outcomes.
And you could say that a woman's perception of color is unexplainable compared to a man's because of some mysterious process.
But knowing that women have a tendency to tetrachromacy one wonders if their perception of color is altered by that additional capability, outside of the "true, universal theory of color for trichromats." And more interestingly perhaps, why they might have such a thing, placental mammals are dichromats, except the species closely related to humans who are trichromats, except for a subset who are tetrachromats, maybe a direction of genetic drift?
The constituents of the populations of cone cells governed by genetic rules, and certainly realized as a continuum, with the average being three types in humans, but also two types, four types and even one type, we take "average" here to be the average of the types of cone cells that are possible within the total population of cone cells, so even monochromats might have some other cone cell types. It is an interesting speculation as to what that might be like, but actually we are all different so we experience a bit of this variance "subjectively."
One might hope that a "theory of color" has more explanatory power, that is more general, than the particular instantiation in humans.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 11:48am PT
|
and Paul fears this dismisses his life's work as "irrelevant" or somehow less relevant than the association with the "objective"
Oh come on, Isn't the above just a bit overwrought?
We are, it is true, caught in the trap of our own inner self and in that sense our sensory experience is profoundly subjective. However, we do have the ability to communicate with real accuracy said experience and through that communication arrive at a consensus that effectively mediates subjectivity. We are, after all, much more alike than we are different. The very minor differences in color perception between individuals counts for little in the larger picture as to how humans experience color.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 11:51am PT
|
overwrought?
My argument here is simply that the immeasurable quality inherent in subjectivity is often cause for, at least in a materialist sense, dismissal.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 12:12pm PT
|
overwrought?
My argument here is simply that the immeasurable quality inherent in subjectivity is often cause for, at least in a materialist sense, dismissal.
I stand by that statement, however, I don't see how my "life's work" becomes irrelevant. Good grief.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 12:35pm PT
|
why then worry about the possibility of "dismissal"?
which is, after all, just another straw man you construct to characterize the "materialists," who ever they may be.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 01:01pm PT
|
why then worry about the possibility of "dismissal"?
Because time and again I've seen the arts take a second place to STEM when it comes to funding, and I do think that's a mistake predicated on notions of what can be measured and what can't or what is more and less difficult to quantify. I don't see that as a straw man but rather something very real.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 01:21pm PT
|
Paul, I have a question:
In your creative work do you take into account the various effects/vagaries of different forms of lighting upon the work-- especially as regards critical differences in lighting under which the piece is created as contrasted to the lighting under which it is later exhibited?
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 01:38pm PT
|
Because time and again I've seen the arts take a second place to STEM when it comes to funding, and I do think that's a mistake predicated on notions of what can be measured and what can't or what is more and less difficult to quantify
I don't think this is accurate. It's more likely funding will go to projects that may lead to beneficial changes in our physical environment, like the microwave oven or supersonic transports. Of course, it can be argued that art has significant benefits as well, but not on the order of the Salk vaccine.
At least from my perspective. You may see it differently.
(A simple prelude to the Tarski Paradox is the fact that the line segment from zero to one is equivalent to the line segment from zero to infinity. Simply use y=Tan(xpi/2). A one to one correspondence of points. The real numbers are strange indeed.)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 02:04pm PT
|
In your creative work do you take into account the various effects of different forms of lighting upon the work-- especially as regards critical differences in lighting under which the piece is created as contrasted to the lighting under which it is later exhibited?
Absolutely. Lighting is fundamentally important both in working and exhibition space and can mislead the artist or ruin a work's appearance. Especially true in exhibition spaces where light meters are often used to assure a proper amount of light while at the same time protecting the pigments from over exposure. It's a delicate operation. An under lit work can look like crap and one lit too hot can have the same affect. North light is always best for working. I use a mixture of fluorescents warm and cool in combination with daylight. Working in a traditional or limited palette compounds the problems. Not sure if it's true, but supposedly Turner made folks spend ten minutes in a dark room before coming in to look at his paintings.
I don't think this is accurate. It's more likely funding will go to projects that may lead to beneficial changes in our physical environment, like the microwave oven or supersonic transports. Of course, it can be argued that art has significant benefits as well, but not on the order of the Salk vaccine.
Hard to argue with the Salk vaccine. But think of all the other inquiry at universities yielding discoveries of a much less humane kind: technology of war and so on.
Really the first thing to go when the budget tightens, at least in my experience, is the art program.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 02:19pm PT
|
A simple prelude to the Tarski Paradox is the fact that the line segment...
I'm just struggling to figure out what the angle subtended by an arc on an ellipse (from the center of the ellipse) is... all I find is swooning over the elliptical functions, but no one solves the simple problem.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2018 - 09:07pm PT
|
Well that information can certainly evoke a lot of highly subjective mixed emotions!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2018 - 09:13am PT
|
DMT: You aren't going to deconstruct anything that isn't physical, get it through your heads.
Bloody hell. This is just wrong. We do it all the time in the arts and the humanities and philosophy and politics and religion and in cognitive science and yada yada. I’d suggest to you that the great many things that we concern ourselves in our everyday lives are not material. Love, trust, value, priorities, organization, culture, entertainment, etc. Mind, intelligence, emotions, the ratings and grades of climbing, and on and on. Hell, anything that relies upon a theory to say what it is, is immaterial at the end of the day.
Ed: So subjective, meaning specific to an individual, is the rule.
There is no rule. It might be a repeated or consistent set of observations. Practical, sure, but instrumental usage is not a rule. It’s a heuristic. There are no rules. Go ahead and posit conclusions from scientific studies. (I thought Madbolter1 had put this issue to bed.)
We can avoid all of these philosophical and epistemological quandaries by simply making simple observations. What are, or might be, the descriptions of mind? (Gather lists among folk, run a cluster or a factor analysis, and see what hangs together.) I don’t understand why folks *refuse* to even try to come up with the simplest elements of mind (or what seems to be mind).
Why is that the most fundamental task to the initiation of a scientific investigation cannot be attempted? What compels people to jump to explanation before description? I honestly don’t get it.
BTW, I have no beef with any theory of color. For me, color is an indescribable energy field, a texture if you will, and I can’t really say what it is either. I guess I don’t feel the great need to say how color works. I sense a great power / influence when I perceive blue or red or orange or yellow in different settings. For me, the explanation of rods and cones are useless when it comes to looking at a sunset, or a painting by Kandinsky, or to talk about what I “see” in Cartier-Bresson’s black and white photographs. When I see my aged mother (age, 90) in a brightly colored summer dress, I am struck by an energy source that rods and cones say nothing about. The joy of life at life’s end. You go, Mom!
My gosh, most of life (at least to this being) has nothing at all to do with what appears to be primarily material. The great theory of Evolution notwithstanding, all of life to me is subjective. Take away the subjective, and what would life be????
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!