« Meditation: nothing special, whatever is going on | Main | Ooh, Easter eve! Time for a blasphemous un-sermon »

April 01, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Even the objective facts of science are known through subjective personal consciousness"

I'm sorry but i disagree with this.

There is an objective world around us whether or not we can individually percieve it or not. The blind person who does not see the tree will still hit it when he walks into it. There are many phenommen which are beyond our senses and experience and yet they exist. The atomic world is way beyond our experience and yet we know through objective evidence that it exits.

The chap on an acid trip who sees melting walls or floating fairies, has a subjective experience that something exists, but it does not.

There is a difference between what exists and what does not, there is a world that exists independent of our sensing thereof.

George, I agree that the world/universe exists independent of human consciousness. But the only way we can know that the world exists is by being conscious of it. And consciousness is subjective. No one has access to another person's consciousness. Our consciousness is a thoroughly private world that offers us access to an objective public world.

This is why William James said the world of our experience always consists of an objective and subjective part. This appears to be undeniable.

Consider this "thought experiment," which I've toyed with in some blog posts. Try to visualize what the universe would be like if no human beings existed. When I do this, I find myself sort of floating in a vast space, seeing galaxies and such with no evidence of life.

But wait. That seeing is what I see now with my human eyes and other organs of perception. Bees "see" differently. Bats "see" differently. Aliens might "see" wildly differently. Absent any conscious entity of any sort in the universe, how would the universe appear?

Well, obviously we can't say. That's an impossible question to answer, because it isn't possible to have a "God's eye" purely objective perspective on reality. There is no objectivity without subjectivity, no awareness of an objective world without subjective consciousness.

Your example of the blind person walking into a wall supports this. A blind person has senses, just not sight. Blind people can perceive some aspects of reality better than sighted people, just as our dog is hugely more aware of smells when I take her on a walk than I am. She and I are experiencing the same reality in vastly different ways.

So again, there is no way of knowing what the world is like absent our subjective awareness of it. We can't get outside of our subjective consciousness and know reality from some sort of external perspective. Our viewpoint is always on the inside, looking out.

Science is so successful because it arrives at a consensus viewpoint based on multiple subjective inputs. But it's important to remember that this is still a human consensus. Alien beings with different modes of perception and cognition almost certainly would have a considerably different science than we do.

sensuality and experience are not mutually codependent, what makes you think physical sensuality is the be all and end all of any and all experience.

Hi Brian, great post, and got me thinking about how 12-step programs handle the whole religion/spirituality thingy.

One is required, upon entering a 12-step program, to accept some kind of "higher power." This power can be defined in any way at all by each individual member; however, it seems that the goal of this is not so much to dismiss mind, science and understanding of the world, but to abolish the ego, and more importantly, the free will of the ego. In this, it resembles many Eastern traditions. In 12-step programs, this dismantling of the ego is purely practical; an addict left to the ego's devices always drinks. It is the nature of the (mental) illness of addiction to tell the sufferer that they do not have the disease, a conundrum that has kept problem drinkers drinking and addicted users using ever since there have been mind-altering substances. It can be debated whether this is true for all alcoholics and addicts; however, those that come into 12-step programs and manage to arrest their active addiction are the ones for whom this model rings true, and it rings true usually through years of fruitless experimentation with any and all other methods of quitting and staying quit.

Athiests and agnostics are often found in the rooms, and define a "higher power" on more humanistic terms, i.e. "God" becoming an acronym for "Group of Drunks" or simply some nebulous, undefined thing that is "not me" ("me" meaning the will of the ego, and more specifically, the will of the ego to drink or use).

Thus, on whatever terms, and on a very practical day-to-day level, the ego is deconstructed. In practice, this equates to the problem/solution model you put forth, that there is an uneasiness, something wrong, and that there is a solution, of being "saved from the wrong by higher powers." However, rather than reinforcing the ego, the ego is no longer trusted to make decisions, and even when "letting go" of the need to make decisions, decisions seem to get made anyway, generally "better" decisions, not involving using all of one's energies and resources to continue in active addiction, which is, it must be said, hard work. This "letting go" mechanism is poorly understood and expressed in many ways, but fundamentally and most frequently, is expressed as acceptance - "be(ing) content with the the big wide world as it is, rather than as how our little narrow egos wish it were."

There is very little dogma espoused beyond the some very general platitudes, such as "let go and let God" or "your best thinking got you here" or the serenity prayer, which is a small philosophy unto itself, urging the will of the ego to handle only what it is appropriate for it to handle. The main thing it can't handle is the decision of whether or not to take a drink. Of course, one's drinking and using needs to fall into the model of absolutely nothing else working to arrest the addiction despite "countless vain attempts" for the 12-step solution to work.

I guess the whole 12-step thing is successful bcause it, like science, "...arrives at a consensus viewpoint based on multiple subjective inputs." The narrowly defined subjective inputs, in the case of recovery from addiction through 12-step programs, are "I can't stop drinking/using" and "following these 12 steps seems to work for a lot of people where nothing else does." There is, to back it all up, a large body of scientific study of the 12-step model as an effective treatment for alcoholism and addiction, but individual addicts, relieved of the symptoms of their disease, generally don't give a damn whether there is scientific backup or not. It simply works, and that's good enough for them. It is purely practical and not meant to be an answer for the big "why am I here, what does it all mean" existential questions (that general uneasiness you refer to). However, as an extra added bonus, those big questions are usually answered too, the answer being "just shut up and live!"

Again, Brian, great post.

Suzanne, interesting comment. I know next to nothing about 12-step programs. You educated me a bit. I've wondered how atheists and agnostics handle the "let go and let God" thing. It's probably considerably simpler to believe that you're turning over your addiction problem to God, rather than your higher self.

But I suspect that they amount to the same thing: embracing a larger aspect of yourself than the relatively small part that relied on alcohol or drugs to get along in the world.

Yes, religions and 12-step programs do involve letting go of the ego in certain ways. However, the motivation to do so is ego-related: to get rid of distressing problems. In my experience, people who are consciously attempting to become egoless seem quite egotistical -- which isn't surprising, since focusing on giving up the ego requires attention to be kept on the ego.

"Am I acting humble? Do I appear to be selfless? Oh, good. I must be making progress." There's a lot of "I" here.

So I feel that it's impossible, or virtually impossible, to become genuinely egoless, or to let go of self will. Deciding to surrender to a supposedly higher power is still an act of i-ness, of the ego saying "this is what I want to do to make my life better."

It is, and it isn't: impossible, that is. Ego still unfolds in a useful way, a simple, negotiating-the-appearance way. The unfolding story of "making life better" is just the unfolding story. It can change at any time. Becoming genuinely egoless is not a goal, not in 12-step programs anyway. The goal is practical: stop drinking/using, and stay stopped. The wherefores and whys of that goal coming up is just part of the story. It is what it is.


This one's for you, George

Brian, Monkey

Its a very interesting question. What is knowledge (and its epistemological limits) i.e. subjectivity v objectivity. Is anything truly objective?

Such relativistic-type arguments need to be contextualised clearly. If everything is relative, and there are no absolutes, this does not mean everything is equally true or equally subjective. Rather, it means some phenomenon can have a different degree of truth or subjectivity relative to another.

Even if science is not absolutely objective, it is more objective as relatively compared to any other method of insight into reality. Indeed, the very idea of the scientific method is to make it as objective as possible, which is in total contrast to the mystical traditions of going within.

But many mystic traditions appear to confabulate their method with science, by incorrectly equating a personal ‘experience’ with scientific ‘empiricism’.

Scientific empiricism uses calibrated standardised instrumentation as the means for measurement and all results are made fully public open to peer review, whereas the mystic uses his/her trained human mind (which is not calibrated or standardised, little understood and prone to error and bias) and his experience is kept secret. The mystical process is purely subjective, there is no way of telling whether one person's experience is the same as that of another person, and indeed it is often described differently.

But more than that, to be scientific a method of inquiry must also be concerned with evidence that is measurable. The mystical experience is not even describable let alone measurable, and certainly not measurable to the extent that it may be subjected to principles of reasoning.
The deductive aspect of science, i.e. reason and logic, through mathematics is of course totally foreign to mystical traditions, precisely because their evidence is not measurable or defined in sufficiently accurate detail for any logic to be applied. Mathematics is independent of perception or experience, yet it continues to inform science and make predictive theories that are only later confirmed by experiment.

My example of the blindman was not meant to show the limits of the physical senses per se, rather to show the limits of subjective knowledge and experience generally. That is, a knowledge of reality which is mind-dependent, will always be susceptible to error as a result of not only our physical senses, but also our mind's processing of such experiences.

I have tried to be open-minded and have just read ‘the Tao of Physics’ by Crapja, which i must admit is better than I thought and the histories of both science and eastern mysticism are well presented. Unlike Chopra, Crapja does a significantly better job of providing reasons as to the supposed overlap of quantum theory and eastern mysticism. The question is whether he has made superficial comparisons, and whether it is a triumph of skilful rhetoric over truth. So far tho this is one of the best reads on the subject.

logic i.e. mathematics is by no means an accurate measure of reality, not even close.

Simply an attempt by logical brain functions to try and formulate or emulate a model that logic can relate its stepped down version of reality to. But an accurate mathematical model of reality is an impossibility. Same as a verbal or descriptive explanation of it is also.

Reality itself is something else and can only be experienced and realized directly one on one. And once experienced is best to shut up about it because logic itself is simply dumbfounded and incapable of realizing or recognizing reality in its real state of direct experience.

mathematics is a way of expressing reality, just as any other language, except it is more accurate than general language because the symbols have clear meaning.

Our sense are limited and our brains are subjective and prone to congnitive error, thus mathematics allows us most objectively to model reality.

You say reality can only be experience and yet you describe our sensory inputs as illusory. So by what means is reality experienced if not through our sense and mathematics? Explain by what means this direct realization comes about?

you cannot, no-one can, that is the difference between mysticism and science, science wants to have an explanation as to why the personal experience is valid and not a deulsion, whereas mystics are just concerned with the experience itself and not with the validity thereof.

George, I mostly (if not entirely) agree with your comments above. Mathematics is a tool for understanding certain aspects of reality. And isn't it amazing that the laws of nature often can be described so accurately by mathematics?

Clearly no scientist, or anybody else, believes it is the only tool. There is much more to human life than mathematics -- a point that is so obvious it doesn't need saying (but I've said it anyway).

As an alternative to "objective," another way of describing the scientific side of reality is "intersubjective." Meaning, different people agree that such and such actually exists in a certain way. Like you said, mysticism is very weak on intersubjectivity. Experiences are much more like dreams -- highly subjective, with no objectivity other than brain activity -- than observations of an external reality.

halicat, you err in saying that there is such a thing as "direct experience." This is an article of faith, not, well, experience. There is no evidence that humans are able to experience anything except through the physical brain/mind. It is well known that unconscious and subconscious factors (the "hidden brain") strongly affect how we experience both the outside and inside worlds.

Sure, people believe in direct experience, pure awareness, or whatever you want to call it. People also believe that their sight is clear, not recognizing that everyone has a blind spot caused by eye anatomy that is automatically filled in by the brain with what is assumed to be there.

Many other examples could be given of how the mind/brain operates at an unconscious level to filter/affect how conscious experience sees things. So "direct experience" is like God: a concept, an abstraction, a hypothesis -- not something for which there is demonstrable evidence.

god almighty, only a complete and utter idiot would be blind to what mathematics has brought to the world in terms of understanding.

if it was not for mathematics and the modern sciences and those few who've decide to use their intellect, we'd still be left in the dark ages having to rely on charlatan explanations as to the order of things.

we'd still be believing in fairies and hobgobblins, and eating up all the fairy tales and poetry associated therewith. in fact, some of us still are.

I can see not believing in fairies. However, believing in hobgobblins sounds kinda KOOL. Don't knock it until ya try it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.