Objective/Subjective

[steve_bank]

um

All I know are my experiences.

Theists claim they experience god.

The actress Shirley MacLaine famously claimed she was somebody famous in a prior life.

People hallucinate.

It is al an experience, the question is the difference between thought forms that have a relation to the real world and thise that do not. Those that can not tell the difference are called menially ill.

Are all experiences real in that they relate to the rea world?

Science represents a link between thought and the physical world. Objective reality as best we cam define it.

Good to see you are doing for others. Does that experience with suffering lead to your views? In the Buddhist narrative it was the observation of suffering that put Buddha on a lifelong search to answer the why of it.

 

[fromderinside]

- FDI

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

First Delgado comment completely misses my point. My control is relative to the task to which I put my observer to participate. Purely operational. Its not what to which she responds it's how she responds formally to inputs I provide.

I take establishing and sustaining objective behavior very seriously.

One time I had an observer who wanted to discuss how he felt about what I was presenting. That was not my objective so I dismissed him after three sessions in which he insisted on communicating how he felt about each stimulus presented as he was working in the lab setting. Had I wanted to hear what he had to say, had it been relevant to the purpose of the study, I would have provided rules by which he could so communicate objectively. Every study has a specific purpose and design appropriate to that purpose.

Delgado ... comments about the future and about controlling the mind indicate plainly that he was not only motivated by a desire to discover objective truth, but that there was a political motive driving his experiments and research. A motive that virtually anyone can see is not only disturbing, but in fact evil, if evil is anything at all. Steve was right: all governments are interested in such things, but only a strongly authoritarian government would ever attempt to literally control the masses through mutilation of their brains.

That you dismissed a subject because he wanted to discuss his feelings with you makes me wonder even more about your moral compass.

Research is not the work for a free range chicken intent on getting everything about anything from those they enlist to participate probably so they can judge them after the fact as you apparently do.

Research is narrow and very selective.

If I want to understand the limits of an individual's ability to gather meaning from uttered or naturally occurring sounds I would attempt to isolate attributes of those sounds my investigation. The sounds themselves naturally, how they are arranged, processed, and used in the narrow domains of recognition, detection, and identification are also important in very narrow perspective tuned to what is essential to the task of making sense out of of what one receives via the ear.

Obviously my study needs to be economical and precise else I'd wind up spending a lot of time gathering enormous amounts of data obstructing my goal of understanding basic nature of how hearing is done. Reducing variables to those germane to what one is studying is an important aspect of any research.

To that end controls and protocols become important. Francis Crick wouldn't just look at a brain to understand how consciousness comes to be. He'd put constraints on his search for what is essential to so doing by limiting what he means by consciousness. That is how he got to chiasma and tegmentum as targets in his search.

So while I respect your critique what you suggest is insensitivity isn't germane to my study so I left no coddle factor in my protocol.

What I did has nothing at all to do with whether I am a sensitive or insensitive person. I provide explicit and extensive training and explanation of my protocol and my goals to observers who actually volunteer and are paid to participate.

Since this isn't a criticize Delgado thread I see no need to join in your condemnation of him in it.

Forums like social critique has limits to when and how Woke is applied.

 

[untermensche]

um

All I know are my experiences.

Theists claim they experience god.

They know about their experiences and what they make from their experiences.

I conclude something very different from their subjective experiences and reports of them.

The actress Shirley MacLaine famously claimed she was somebody famous in a prior life.

That is an empty claim devoid of evidence. Evidence is something a person can experience.

People hallucinate.

You don't say.

It is al an experience, the question is the difference between thought forms that have a relation to the real world and thise that do not. Those that can not tell the difference are called menially ill.

I have said repeatedly that "objective" is a subset of subjective experience.

But I might as well be talking to my dog.

Are all experiences real in that they relate to the rea world?

"Real" is a label we attach to a subset of experience.

Generally it is what we experience with our senses. But we do draw conclusions based on our experiences and call some of these "real" as well.

Science represents a link between thought and the physical world. Objective reality as best we cam define it.

Science are those assumptions and conclusions from assumptions derived from experience that allow us to predict future experiences.

It is not nothing or merely an experience.

 

[untermensche]

No, I am not only a mind. I am a human being who has a brain,

That is a conclusion you make with your mind based on your experiences.

The experience of your body is not what you are.

It is something you experience.

I am forced to repeat.

What are you? (Hint: You are that which experiences)

*Yes, humans do have direct contact with the external world. We can look at it and see it and smell it and feel it and touch it, at myriads of points on our bodies. In fact, we are in intimate contact with the external world, and with objects.

You do not experience the flower and the smell of the flower. The flower has no color or smell. The flower has not entered your mind.

You experience your experiences of the flower. Your experiences have color.

Does all this experience occur in the mind? Yes. And the mind depends on the brain.

Have you ever experienced your brain? You cannot experience your brain. Even if you looked at a video of your brain during surgery you are still just experiencing your experience of your brain.

That is an assumption based entirely on experience.

Because you have nothing besides your experiences and what you make of them.

"Are you not a mind?" is a silly question.

To those incapable of thinking about it.

 

[untermensche]

Research is not the work for a free range chicken...

The quality of research cannot rise above the assumptions the researchers make.

If a researcher thinks vibrating air contains information about the experience of sound and is not merely a stimulus that causes the brain to construct the experience of sound then the quality of the research will not rise above these bad assumptions.

 

[WAB]

Okee doke, I'm dropping the Delgado angle. But it turned out just as I had expected - just as it turned out years ago.

 

[steve_bank]

Science are those assumptions and conclusions from assumptions derived from experience that allow us to predict future experiences.

It is not nothing or merely an experience.

It is a bit more than that. My guess is you are unwilling to concede wat you probably understand. Are we assuming near the surface g is 9.8 M.S^2 oris that number a measured objective fact?

BTW, do you speak Yiddish and why the untermenche tag? I knew menche but had to lookup untermenche. Your shtick sounds more ubermenche.

What is the difference between physics and metaphysics?

 

[untermensche]

Science are those assumptions and conclusions from assumptions derived from experience that allow us to predict future experiences.

It is not nothing or merely an experience.

It is a bit more than that.

Show me something more.

My guess is you are unwilling to concede wat you probably understand.

I fully understand that as a mind all I have are my experiences and what I make from them.

Are we assuming near the surface g is 9.8 M.S^2 oris that number a measured objective fact?

That is something derived from experiences. There is no other way to arrive at conclusions like that. We assume it won't change.

The Large Hadron Collider is a huge instrument created to give humans certain experiences. They call the experiences "data".

BTW, do you speak Yiddish and why the untermenche tag? I knew menche but had to lookup untermenche. Your shtick sounds more ubermenche.

It is nothing but a meaningless joke. Maybe not such a great joke.

What is the difference between physics and metaphysics?

How many times do I have to tell you?

We call something science (sometimes) if we can use it to predict future experiences or if it reflects repeated experiences under controlled situations.

 

[steve_bank]

Show me something more.

My guess is you are unwilling to concede wat you probably understand.

I fully understand that as a mind all I have are my experiences and what I make from them.

Are we assuming near the surface g is 9.8 M.S^2 oris that number a measured objective fact?

That is something derived from experiences. There is no other way to arrive at conclusions like that. We assume it won't change.

The Large Hadron Collider is a huge instrument created to give humans certain experiences. They call the experiences "data".

BTW, do you speak Yiddish and why the untermenche tag? I knew menche but had to lookup untermenche. Your shtick sounds more ubermenche.

It is nothing but a meaningless joke. Maybe not such a great joke.

What is the difference between physics and metaphysics?

How many times do I have to tell you?

We call something science (sometimes) if we can use it to predict future experiences or if it reflects repeated experiences under controlled situations.

Putz!!!

 

[untermensche]

Putz!!!

You got nothing but insults.

I can only lead jackasses to water.

 

[steve_bank]

Putz!!!

You got nothing but insults.

I can only lead jackasses to water.

Bubkus.

A case of the kettle calling the frying black....

So far over uncountable numbers of posts all you have said is that everything is an experience. Ok, now what? Same response to all questions.

Can you articulate the difference between metaphysics and physics other than a simplistic use of the words experience and assumptions?

If I say an object weighs 1 kilogram, how is that an assumption? Do you mean you assume it because it is measured to be 1kg traceable back to the SI unit and standard of mass?

assumption

a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
"they made certain assumptions about the market"
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
"they made certain assumptions about the market"

When you say science is based on assumptions that is clearly wrong and you do not understand science.. I have a sense of what you are trying to say but you are not framing it properly.

All things human are thought forms, a given. What separates science from philosophy and metaphysics is that science has physical reference points not subject to personas interpretation.

Assuming the speedometer is in good working order, assumed but not proven, and says 50 mph is it an assumption to say the speed is 50 mph?

If you measure a distance by the length ofour shoes, it it an assumption that the distance is say 10 shoe lengths or is it an objective fact? One of those either or-black and white questions.

Science is not based on assumptions, it is based on mutually agreed on reference points, Systems International.

 

[untermensche]

Bubkus.

A case of the kettle calling the frying black....

I understand what I am saying. You don't seem to have a clue what I am saying. It is as if you can't either read or understand.

So far over uncountable numbers of posts all you have said is that everything is an experience.

I never once said "Everything is an experience". It takes a little sophistication to understand what I am saying.

I have said: All humans have are their experiences and the assumptions they make from them. Thinking is an experience.

Newton experienced a falling apple and made some assumptions to construct a system that predicted future experiences with it. Newton's thoughts were an experience he had.

Can you articulate the difference between metaphysics and physics other than a simplistic use of the words experience and assumptions?

I have answered this question in some form at least four times.

My experiences inform me that physics is a human constructed system of models and descriptions based on assumptions about experiences that can be used to make predictions about future experiences. The main assumption of physics is that the experiences we have with our senses are experiences of things that exist out in the world.

Construction of a model is done with thinking. Thinking is somebodies experience. The thoughts of Einstein were something he experienced. The models he constructed were something he and others can experience.

Metaphysics is not a system of models used to make predictions about future experiences. It is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy is something we can know about only through experience, by having the experience of reading or having an auditory experience of some person we experience talking.

If I say an object weighs 1 kilogram, how is that an assumption?

If you merely have the visual experience of the object then stating it's weight is a guess.

If you experience some numbers on a scale then obviously that is an experience.

The building of a scale is an experience based on assumptions gained from prior experiences.

Not all assumptions are equal. Some are helpful and some are not.

Do you mean you assume it because it is measured to be 1kg traceable back to the SI unit and standard of mass?

I don't assume the numbers on the scale. I experience them. If another person that I experience gives a report I experience that they experience the same numbers I experience then the idea that the object is out there is an assumption made. It is still only an assumption based on experience.

Science is not based on assumptions, it is based on mutually agreed on reference points, Systems International.

A reference point is something humans experience.

Humans have nothing but their experiences and the assumptions they make from them.

 

[steve_bank]

Scientific reference points are something humans create, not experience.

Your use of the term assume is incorrect.

Are the orbits of the planets a fact or experience? Do planets exist without humans to 'experience' them?

You are sounding like lke what I call 'new age mysticism' that came out of the 60s mix of eastern mysticism and drugs..

 

[DBT]

Okee doke, I'm dropping the Delgado angle. But it turned out just as I had expected - just as it turned out years ago.

There is no reason why it would be different this time around. According to accounts, his comments were made out of naivity and enthusiasm for the work rather than an evil intent to 'take over our minds.'

Unfortunate and foolish remarks that have no real bearing on the research, which others have carried on.

 

[untermensche]

Scientific reference points are something humans create, not experience.

Creating something is a series of experiences. Thinking is an experience. Hitting a nail with a hammer is an experience.

I don't think you have a clue what the word "experience" means.

Your use of the term assume is incorrect.

Nonsense.

Are the orbits of the planets a fact or experience? Do planets exist without humans to 'experience' them?

They are something we experience.

I assume the planets are out there but I can't experience them.

I can only experience my experience of them.

You are sounding like lke what I call 'new age mysticism' that came out of the 60s mix of eastern mysticism and drugs..

You are sounding like you don't have the slightest clue what I'm saying.

Thinking is an experience. Try it.

 

[steve_bank]

Creating something is a series of experiences. Thinking is an experience. Hitting a nail with a hammer is an experience.

I don't think you have a clue what the word "experience" means.



Nonsense.

Are the orbits of the planets a fact or experience? Do planets exist without humans to 'experience' them?

They are something we experience.

I assume the planets are out there but I can't experience them.

I can only experience my experience of them.

You are sounding like lke what I call 'new age mysticism' that came out of the 60s mix of eastern mysticism and drugs..

You are sounding like you don't have the slightest clue what I'm saying.

Thinking is an experience. Try it.

I co not think any of us really understand what you are saying. Can you consider you may have a communication problem?

You assume the planets are out there? Why do you assume the planets are out there? An assumption is a conclusion without proof and foundation. You are misusing the term.

There is an old comedy record from the 70s A Child's Garden Of Grass. One of the routines is Profound Revelations about hww at night when stoned you have what you think is a profound revelation only to realize in the morning it is not so profound after all. It should be online.

That I truly do understand.

 

[DBT]

The World cares not in the least about our experience of it.....

 

[untermensche]

You assume the planets are out there? Why do you assume the planets are out there? An assumption is a conclusion without proof and foundation. You are misusing the term.

An assumption is not something without foundation.

I assume you don't understand what I am saying based on my experiences of how you react to it.

We have no proof the universe is out there. We assume it is based on our experiences. We also make the assumption based on the utility of the assumption.

If we don't assume our experience of the hot stove is based on something out there we will experience pain when we put what we experience as our hand on it.

But that does not mean we have more than our experiences and our assumptions about them.

We are minds experiencing. That is all we know for certain.

 

[untermensche]

The World cares not in the least about our experience of it.....

The world is something you are experiencing, and that it does not care about you is an assumption.

 

[untermensche]

To say; all we have are our experiences and the assumptions we make about them, is not saying much. It won't change our behavior (our experience of 'acting' in the world).

But it is the truth for those who care about such things.