Property Dualism...

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Boats And Hoes, Jun 1, 2013.

  1. There is a difference between an objectified neural/atomic process and the actual phenomenal experience of lets say red... this is a fact.

    You can know about all of the physical and structural aspects of color, like about light waves, rods and cones, the retina, etc.., but the actual subjective experience of this allows for a different knowledge of the properties of color, other than the structural and physical process... which are posited by modern science. Scientist cannot refute this, for this subjective knowledge, i.e, the conscious aspect of the color red, its phenomenal nature, is a property that is distinct from the physical and structural properties.

     
    U may be know all about the physical and structural properties of a bat's brain, but u will never discover or understand the subjective experience of a bat... there is a reason for this, for there is a difference between the properties of subjective experience, i.e., the mind, and the properties of the brain, i.e., subject and object!
     
    And I use "phenomenon" in the Kantian sense of the word.
     
    "Phenomenon: an appearance or immediate object of awareness in experience."
     
     
  2. Science doesn't deal with the subjective.
     
  3. #3 Boats And Hoes, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
     
    To bad the subject is the upholder of the world of knowledge... for it's all relative, i.e., relative to a SUBJECT. :rolleyes:
     
    Science creates an artifical objective world from the knowledge acquired by the subject...
     
    Asserting an objective and independent reality from ur own subjective experience of reality is a transcendental assertion that is not validated by sensory-empiricism, i.e., not scientific...!
     
    "Science doesn't deal with the subjective", yet science can't do or assert anything without the subject. :eek:
     
     
  4. If I understood correctly, I think you might be jumping too far ahead. Cognitive science is still in it's infancy. Some time in the future they might find a theory of how subjective experience arises from the brain, or they might even find that subjective experience doesn't exist and it's just an illusion of the brain, I dunno. If you're saying that science can't explain subjective experience, then there should be a way to find out if science can explain subjective experience or not.
     
    I think that talking about dualism in philosophy is just mental masturbation though. The only way philosophers can get to any common ground is through developments in cognitive science. This is a subject where they're philosophizing when they should be doing science.
     
  5. Science creates an artifical objective world from the knowledge acquired by the subject...
     
     This is not the case. Science doesn't look at the world simply through subjective consciousness, but also by mechanical processess and say, math, which are not limited by observation. The methods used are far more rigorous and unbiased than what could be ascertained simply by deduction.
     
    Scientist cannot refute this, for this subjective knowledge, i.e, the conscious aspect of the color red, its phenomenal nature, is a property that is distinct from the physical and structural properties.
     
     This again is untrue. Smell relies to some extent on the physical shape of molecules, sight on the interpretation of light - both actual physical things - which lead to experiences of them in physical chemical reactions in the brain. Change the chemicals and the thought can be altered, heightened or erased. There is no 'conscious aspect' of the colour red that is distinct from its physical presence. Objects seeming to be red or yellow differ in physical make up, leading to our perception of a colour we call red or yellow.
     
     Science is not restricted to what can be observed of the physical, that would be like saying that the neurosciences don't exist and that science stops at what it can touch. This is patently wrong, and we are already making great inroads into understanding perception.
     
    MelT
     
  6. #6 Deleted member 95373, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2013
     
    Great explanation Melt, your post was informative.
     
  7. #7 Boats And Hoes, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
     
    1.) Mechanical processes first asserted by the subject; and for math, math is not a real thing, it's an artifical entity created by cognizant Man -- have u ever physically experienced numbers?..
     
    2.) Wrong. Science has axioms, and all of its assertions must be traced back to these axioms, i.e., science induces and deduces by way of their axioms...!
     
    3.) U seem to have missed my point. Saying that light and molecules are physical don't have to do with anything, this is something I indicated when I spoke of "objectified atomic processes", so this is all understood. The point was, there is a difference between objectified, i.e., physical, atomic processes and the actual subjective experience of them. Think of it likes this... u can scan all the physical activity of a person's brain and body when he or she is dreamig, and u can damn well know every part of the brain that's stimulated at the moment the neurons fire off inside of the dreamer's brain, u know everything about the physical structures and processes which entail dreaming, and, as u said, if u were to manipulate the certain parts of the brain/ brain functions, i.e., physical processes, u could consequentially influence the experience of the dreamer.-But, what u seem to missing is that there's a difference between the objective processes between physical things and the actual subjective experience of these processes... u can know all of the physical and objectified processes that occur when one dreams, but, knowing all of this (all about the neural and physical processes), and even if these processes are manipulated or not, u will never know what it feels like to be "in" that dream that's being manipulated or not, i.e., the actual subjective experience of the dream is different than physical processes and properties. Like I said, u can know all about light; about phyiscal processes and all about a bat's brain function, i.e., about the physical processes which allow a bat's echolocation, but u can never know what these physical processes and brain functions subjectively feel like for a bat, i.e., there is a difference between the brain functions and the experience of the brain functions.--This all I was saying... and it's not very hard to see where I am highlighting a difference.
     
    4.) "Science is not restricted to what can be observed of the physical" -- What does this mean? It seems to me u are suggesting that there is physicality we humans can't experience, i.e., there are things out of human's direct tangible "reach", beacuse u say, "science", which ur equating with the word knowledge, isn't restricted to things which can be observed of the physical; by "observed of the physical" u must mean, because u specifically say "of the physical" and not "physically observed", that there is more to reality than our sensory-perception of it, i.e., there is more to reality than what our five senses can tangibly observe? Is this what u meant?
     
  8. #8 Boats And Hoes, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
     
    Wrong in so many ways... philosophy is the only true and RIGHT conduit for such a science and inquiry, i.e, phenomenology.
     
  9. #9 Boats And Hoes, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
     
    A puppet of hollow scientific rhetoric... ur blind dogma isn't surprising at all; ur sort of like those thesits u resent, with ur blind faith to science and all. But u aren't willing to see this, just like those theists and their master's... :poke:.
     
    "Great explanation"... :rolleyes: . He explained nothing that I didn't already assert, in terms of the physical. I brought this stuff to the science section and still no new insight or elucidation regrding my "propaganda" (GTFOH with that u science worshipping zealot); and there is a reason for that, because what I'm saying cannot being refuted by science and must be, inevitabley, accpeted by science... for there are scientists who already accept these transcendental and dualistic notions.
     
  10.  
    Relax m8. I like philosophy, but there are some things that are pointless philosophizing about. Philosophy is a discourse anyway, it's not a method of inquiry.
     
     
    Math isn't just about calculating things. It's a way of describing and modelling things that happen in nature, and also a way of logical reasoning. A great example is quantum mechanics. There are things we can and can't observe experimentally in the subatomic world. Despite this, using functional analysis and some differential equations, you can express the things you can't physically observe in terms of things you can observe in a way that allows you to theoretically analyze the system and predict probabilities with incredible accuracy. Even if math isn't physically "real", it still works well for explaining the universe.
     
     
    He was saying that the "axioms" are rigorously tested by experiment.
     
     
    I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm pretty sure it's true to a certain extent, you might not be able to re-create the subjective experience of someone else. l don't see why there's no reason to think that you can't find a theory of subjective experience happens in the brain, but I don't think that's what you're asserting.
     
     
    Refer to my response of (1).
    It's only in the context of quantum/particle physics, but there are many things that we can't observe experimentally due to the limitations of our human interaction with the world. But it can still be explained using a mathematical framework, and the predictions of the framework can be tested experimentally. In the case of quantum mechanics, the math is extremely accurate at explaining things that we can't observe, so just because it's not observable doesn't mean that you can't try to understand it scientifically.
     
  11. This belongs in the philosophy section.
     
  12. #12 yurigadaisukida, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
    Wrong in so many ways... philosophy is the only true and RIGHT conduit for such a science and inquiry, i.e, phenomenology.

    </blockquote>

    How can you say that after trash talking math?

    Your entire thread is a joke
    A puppet of hollow scientific rhetoric... ur blind dogma isn't surprising at all; ur sort of like those thesits u resent, with ur blind faith to science and all. But u aren't willing to see this, just like those theists and their master's... :poke:.

    "Great explanation"... :rolleyes: . He explained nothing that I didn't already assert, in terms of the physical. I brought this stuff to the science section and still no new insight or elucidation regrding my "propaganda" (GTFOH with that u science worshipping zealot); and there is a reason for that, because what I'm saying cannot being refuted by science and must be, inevitabley, accpeted by science... for there are scientists who already accept these transcendental and dualistic notions.

    </blockquote>

    What your saying can't be refuted by science?

    What are you saying exactly? That understanding that red is red is different then understanding that its em radiation?

    Like.do you even have a point? You think scientists don't know red and blue make green? That's the upper.level your talking about right?

    Your realize scientific measurements such as finding that red is 420nm is the same as looking at it and seeing red right?
    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app


    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  13. If there were no minds or eyes to comprehend the color red, is it really a color?
     
  14. #14 MelT, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
    You keep cutting and pasting the same statements, they sound like direct lifts from someone's website?
     
    Your caveat at the end of your post says it all, that we must agree to Kant's idea of what perception and reality are before debating with you - but for us to do that would be to concede a philosophical point and agree that there was a place for a metaphysical reality. This is the science thread, so you must understand that it's not really going to happen.
     
    Let me sum Kant up. We are camera operators, viewing reality only through our camera, never experiencing the acutal realtiy before us fully because the cameray is in the way. That is certainly easy to prove as far as human experience is concerned, but, whilst human perception is limited, the sciences and our technology are not. Our knowlledge of the world and consciouness is fantastically greater than in Kant's time - two hundred years ago. What we as humans can't see is more than compensated for by what we can see through science. 
     
    Wrong place for an OP like this, try the philosophy section.
     
     
    BTW 'Can not be refuted by science'.....LOL!
     
    MelT
     
  15. #15 Boats And Hoes, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
     
    One question will stump ur hollow and arrogant objections... Can you know what the color red looks like without experiencing it or is knowing the wavelength of light good enough?
     
  16.  
    A HA! So, it's not the actual eye that sees what science can do... now, if it's not the eye that sees scienes worth and what it can do, then what is seeing and appraising sciences compensation's?
     
  17.  
    No... it's not; for color is validated by the experience of it. I consider red a different color than blue because I've subjectively experienced a difference between the two, and not because of my knowledge of wavelegnths.
     
  18. #18 Boats And Hoes, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
     
    Thanks for the thought out response... I appreciate it, brethren. But I cannot answer it now, for that requires more time, and typing, than I have, and can do, right now. But I will def be back to answer ur thorough post, friend... "RELAX M8" -- jaja :smoke: .
     
     
  19.  
    'Aha'?
     
    A little early for claiming points when you've said nothing. What you have posted above is nonsensical. Can you say it again, in english?
     
    MelT
     
  20. #20 Boats And Hoes, Jun 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2013
     
    It's not hard to get... u said, "What we as humans can't see is more than compensated for by what we can see through science."
     
    So, if it's not the eye and the senses that sees, then who is the "we" that can see through the conduit of science... What is it that's exactly "seeing through science"?
     

Share This Page