Objective/Subjective

[untermensche]

untermensche, Steve_Bank asked a question of you in post #117:

If science and astrology are both based on assumptions, is there a difference between astrology and science? If not what differentiates the two?

I think it's a good question.

My answer would be that astrological assumptions are based on nothing but fantasy, while the assumptions scientists have are based on research, experimentation, rigorous, methodical trial and error, ie, hard evidence.

Further, I wouldn't even say that science is based on assumptions, because it isn't.

I did not say all assumptions were good assumptions and I did not say all assumptions are false.

I said that all we have are experiences and the assumptions we make about them.

If future experience aligns with assumptions we consider them good assumptions. That is science.

 

[steve_bank]

You ASSUME much without evidence....

We are that which experiences and makes assumptions.

Show me something else.

If nothing else science and discovery is a process.

Is there a discovery that is not an experience or an assumption based on experience?

Show me one.

In the words of the American philosopher Pop Eye Sailor 'I ams what I ams'. Words to live by.

Science is an experience, so is sex. Science is a particular experience which you question. Color vision is an experience, the experience is explained by science. Is that difficult to accept?

Pain is an experience, physically explained by medical science.


Extend the index finger of your right hand, put the tip against the side of your head and say out loud 'It is all in my head'. That being said all experiences are not equal. Philosophy bakes no bread, science builds bakeries.


Is there a difference between astrology and say aerodynamics used to design airplanes? Both are experiences. Both use logic and reasoning. Both use mathematical calculations.

We have heard 'science does not get it' before.

 

[untermensche]

We are that which experiences and makes assumptions.

Show me something else.



Is there a discovery that is not an experience or an assumption based on experience?

Show me one.

In the words of the American philosopher Pop Eye Sailor 'I ams what I ams'. Words to live by.

Science is an experience, so is sex. Science is a particular experience which you question. Color vision is an experience, the experience is explained by science. Is that difficult to accept?

Pain is an experience, physically explained by medical science.


Extend the index finger of your right hand, put the tip against the side of your head and say out loud 'It is all in my head'. That being said all experiences are not equal. Philosophy bakes no bread, science builds bakeries.


Is there a difference between astrology and say aerodynamics used to design airplanes? Both are experiences. Both use logic and reasoning. Both use mathematical calculations.

We have heard 'science does not get it' before.

You are making many bad assumptions about my position. You don't understand my position, clearly.

Just because science is built upon many assumptions does not mean they are bad assumptions.

Good assumptions allow you to predict future experiences.

It is a foundational assumption in science that if you can predict future experiences it is because you are making good assumptions.

But they are still assumptions.

Humans don't have anything besides their experiences and the assumptions they derive from them.

Your hand waving doesn't address this point.

 

[steve_bank]

We are that which experiences and makes assumptions.

Show me something else.



Is there a discovery that is not an experience or an assumption based on experience?

Show me one.

In the words of the American philosopher Pop Eye Sailor 'I ams what I ams'. Words to live by.

Science is an experience, so is sex. Science is a particular experience which you question. Color vision is an experience, the experience is explained by science. Is that difficult to accept?

Pain is an experience, physically explained by medical science.


Extend the index finger of your right hand, put the tip against the side of your head and say out loud 'It is all in my head'. That being said all experiences are not equal. Philosophy bakes no bread, science builds bakeries.


Is there a difference between astrology and say aerodynamics used to design airplanes? Both are experiences. Both use logic and reasoning. Both use mathematical calculations.

We have heard 'science does not get it' before.

You are making many bad assumptions about my position. You don't understand my position, clearly.

Just because science is built upon many assumptions does not mean they are bad assumptions.

Good assumptions allow you to predict future experiences.

It is a foundational assumption in science that if you can predict future experiences it is because you are making good assumptions.

But they are still assumptions.

Humans don't have anything besides their experiences and the assumptions they derive from them.

Your hand waving doesn't address this point.

Your views are made on bad assumptions.

Answer if you can. If all is subjective perception is there any difference between astrology and physics? Is there a difference between metaphysics and physics?

And while you are at it, is love real?

Saying you have no answers is perfectly acceptable.

And BTW, that we are made by our experience and perceptions is not exactly a profound revelation. That has nothing to do with objective vs subjective.

 

[untermensche]

Your views are made on bad assumptions.

Yet you can't name one bad assumption I make?

Tell me about my bad assumptions. What are they?

Answer if you can. If all is subjective perception is there any difference between astrology and physics? Is there a difference between metaphysics and physics?

Science are the assumptions that allow us to predict future experiences.

What future experience does astrology predict greater than some other system?

With physics we can build something (a series of experiences) and predict we will have the experience of images from Mars in the future.

And while you are at it, is love real?

It is a real experience.

Saying you have no answers is perfectly acceptable.

Thanks.

And BTW, that we are made by our experience and perceptions is not exactly a profound revelation.

I have not said that.

I said: All we have are our experiences and the assumptions we make from them.

Tell me about something that is not an experience or an assumption made from experience.

That has nothing to do with objective vs subjective.

I totally disagree.

All we have access to about the external world are our experiences of it. With our minds we make assumptions.

Therefore "objective" is some defined subset of "subjective".

 

[fromderinside]

Objective is an observation related to existing material, measured, observations. Subjective is an observation based on one's own belief based on what can not be independently verified.

Both may be real but only something already confirmed as related to other things can be treated as objective.

A self expressed belief must be confirmed by operations relating to existing facts before it can be seen as an objective observation.

untermenche you have not established that your beliefs are verified by independent relationships with other material things.

For example others have established material relationships between color and light temperature and frequency.

You untermenschie have only waved your hands and pointed to your personal experience when you say color is created by experience. You have not established your experience is independent of your internal belief.

Until you either demonstrate color is independent of material relation of light frequency and/or temperature your position remains unsubstantiated.

Let the hand waving begin.

 

[untermensche]

Objective is an observation related to existing material, measured, observations.

Observations are a type of experience. Measurements are a type of experience.

All humans have are their experiences and the assumptions they make from their experiences.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually no, untermensche.

Material observations are measured and externally verifiable in terms of other measurable material operations and standards. It matter not whether the individual carrying out the observations experiences them or no, since what the observer is doing is determined by externally verifiable materially defined protocol. In Other words it matters not the whether one performing the material observation has an experience since his observation consists of doing prescribed tasks in via prescribed, materially verifiable, set of operations.

Both the individual and the experiences of the individual are secondary, subjective, relative to what the observer performs. The man becomes machine, negating her personal subjective 'experience', replacing that with repeatable, externally verifiable, behavior tied to material standards.

IOW because operations exist that persons perform only the material consequences of overt behavior need be recorded to establish a material record of observation.

This is done consequent to negating of the very argument you make for internal nature of self experience reporting.

It is not the same as what the observer experiences. Rather it is a material, externally verifiable, record of operations performed by the observer as an instrument. No one heeds the instrument's experience of her behavior. Only observable, measurable, behavior is recorded.

When I conduct a psychophysical experiment I record only external behavior. Sure I debrief the observer to confirm that they carried out instructions re stimulus and response behavior IAC with experimental protocol.

I may even add to protocols in the future based on that debriefing. I'm not using his experience of the stimulus, rather I'm using his remembered behavior of performing tasks assigned described in terms of the operations I instructed him to use for generating his overt inputs.

What I do in these experiments is control how she acts as a machine to report what I ask as an experimenter about her part in a stimulus response experiment.

Simply, I control the shit out of her behavioral responses to the protocol and information I provide. I require she takes specific actions when she processes signals I provide to which she executes fixed overt behavior insured by substantial practice I prescribe in response to stimuli which I control and provide.

You know that switch you speak of as result of light input to a receptor, well, my observers become well trained switches to inputs I provide i psychophysical experiments.

 

[steve_bank]

You can say all is a cognitive perception and experience and that is true, but objective and subjective are categories of experience and perception.

Objective vs Subjective.

Subjective

You are sure a woman loves you. You can tell by words, body language, tone of voice and the way she looks at you. You are certain it is love. Others around you including the woman may think otherwise. You are making assumptions based on subjective observation and perception. Conclusion varies with the observer. Subjective perception.

Objective

The fact that the Earth orbits the Sun is an observational objective fact. Looking at the solar system can be called a perception, but the observation of the Earth's orbit does not change with who is making the observation. Objective perception.

 

[WAB]

Simply, I control the shit out of her behavioral responses to the protocol and information I provide.

- FDI

Sounds to me like you're more interested in "controlling" the subject's behavior and responses than you are in discovering objective information.

I am not accusing you of that, just responding to your phrasing, and remembering certain things you have said in the past.

I am going to throw Jose Delgado into the mix once again, just for shits and giggles.

I would like to know if anyone else sees something extremely disturbing in the following quote:

“We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. ... The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.”
~ Dr. Jose Delgado

(1915-) Spanish professor of physiology, Director of Neuropsychiatry at Yale Medical School, famed for his research into mind control through electrical stimulation of regions in the brain

Congressional Record, vol. 118, No. 26 (1974)

 

[steve_bank]

Govt and politics is always a battle to control minds. Same with adverting. Today it is all based in psychology and neuroscience .Modern propaganda.

Forget the author. A book on propaganda was written around the 1930s. Before WWII and the Nazis propaganda was not a pejorative, it was a marketing term. The author agued society can not function without propaganda. As our Anerican traditionally propaganda breaks down we see the increase in disorder and conflict.

On NPR I listened to a report on initial work on neural implants and techniques that could potentially read thoughts to a degree.

If it can be done someone will do it.

The head of Amazon ha openly talked about creating an online alternate reality. The Matrix as a rough analogy.


We are seeing mind control on the net and in he media, obviously.

I heard a report about China working on a generically enhanced soldier.

In order to actually implement an embedded electronic control would require a harsh authoritarian control along the lines of Nazism or Stalinism, or China for that matter. The will to do it whiteout any regard for consequences or moral implications concerned only with power and control.

 

[untermensche]

Material observations are measured

A measurement is a human experiencing something.

and externally verifiable in terms of other measurable material operations and standards.

This is gibberish.

 

[bilby]

Material observations are measured

A measurement is a human experiencing something.

...

This is gibberish.

Gibberish indeed.

If a thermostat measures a drop in temperature and turns on a heater, or measures a rise in temperature and turns off the heater, (for example so that a fuel tank remains sufficiently warm for the fuel to stay liquid), where is the 'human experiencing something'?

That system measures temperature, and responds to its measurement, with no human involvement whatsoever; Certainly there's no need for a human to experience anything in order for the measurement to occur.

Your pontification is refuted by reality, and you really should stop defending your demonstrably false positions with such arrogant pomposity, if you care about not being thought a dogmatic fool.

 

[untermensche]

Thermostats and heaters and heat are all experiences.

I said when we can predict future experiences we label that science. Sometimes. Some people call psychology a science.

It does not make any of it more than a bunch of experiences.

There is nothing else for humans besides their experiences and what they make of them.

 

[bilby]

Thermostats and heaters and heat are all experiences.

Who or what is having an experience in my example? There's no human, nor even any life form, involved.

Are you suggesting that a simple bimetallic strip closing an electrical circuit is having an experience?

I said when we can predict future experiences we label that science. Sometimes. Some people call psychology a science.

It does not make any of it more than a bunch of experiences.

There is nothing else for humans besides their experiences and what they make of them.

I am not talking about humans. At all. I am talking about measurements.

A measurement is a human experiencing something.

Are you now accepting that this statement of yours is wrong?

 

[untermensche]

Who or what is having an experience in my example?

Who experiences the heat?

Who experiences a number on an experienced thermometer?

Who experiences the heater?

Who experiences the thermostat?

What are you talking about?

Which part of it is known to you without somebody experiencing it?

 

[bilby]

Who or what is having an experience in my example?

Who experiences the heat?

Who experiences a number on an experienced thermometer?

Who experiences the heater?

Who experiences the thermostat?

What are you talking about?

Which part of it is known to you without somebody experiencing it?

Did you bother to read my post at all?

There's no 'who' in my example.

A mechanical system measures and reacts to temperature changes.

Your claim that "A measurement is a human experiencing something." is therefore false.

Trying to obfuscate your error by asking irrelevant questions that assume your conclusion just makes you look dishonest.

A measurement is a human experiencing something.

No, it isn't. My example describes a measurement being made in the complete absence of any human, much less any human experience.

You are simply wrong. An honest, brave, and honourable response would be for you to say "I was wrong" and to withdraw or amend your erroneous claim.

 

[untermensche]

Did you bother to read my post at all?

There's no 'who' in my example.

There is nobody experiencing any of it?

And how do you know what is happening?

The properties of metals are not the metal taking a temperature.

 

[steve_bank]

Material observations are measured

A measurement is a human experiencing something.

and externally verifiable in terms of other measurable material operations and standards.

This is gibberish.

This is goblety goop, and poor quality gobelty goop at that.

 

[untermensche]

A measurement is a human experiencing something.



This is gibberish.

This is goblety goop, and poor quality gobelty goop at that.

Thanks for the insights.