Features

theapportioner · #1

In other words, can we really reduce subjective experiences to objective science?

Perndog · #2

I doubt it, or at least not until consciousness and perception have been fully explained. What do you think?

kahljorn · #3

Obviously you haven't taken acid.... or heard the stories of enlightenment.. where this guy couldn't become enlightened, so a master told him,
"Become an ox, be enlighteed as an ox", so for months he practiced being an ox, eatting grass, pulling carts, until one day he was standing outside a door and the master asked, "Why aren't you coming in to the house?" the oxen-monk replied, "My horns won't fit!"

And at that he was an enlightened.

Brandon · #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by theapportioner

In other words, can we really reduce subjective experiences to objective science?

Thank you, Dr. Nagel.

At this point in time, the answer is probably 'no.' I don't deny the possibility that subjective experiences can be explained by materialism, but I think an understanding deeper than "thoughts are produced during chemical reactions in the brain" is beyond the scope of contemporary science.

It's definitely a consideration that leaves the monism/dualism debate unsettled.

mburbank · #5

It's an omen...

I will become a creature of the night!

Buffalo Tom · #6

Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot!

Protoclown · #7

With great power comes great respons-DAMMIT

Anonymous · #8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo Tom

Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot!

Hey, don't knock crime 'til you've tried it.

Picture this: There I was completely wasting, out of work, and down. All inside it's so frustrating as I drift from town to town. Feel as though nobody cares if I live or die. So I might as well begin to put some action in my life.

That's how I got started breaking the law. Breaking the law.

The_Rorschach · #9

One cannot objectify the subjective anymore than one can generalize the specific. You illustrated as much when you gave the above example, which was the product of subjective reasoning. To focus on a particular is to divert attention from the whole.

But I'm hardly saying anything new.

I assume you are driving at a point and will post a follow up soon

AChimp · #10

I think the question should be, what is it NOT like to be a bat? :O

kellychaos · #11

Even the best possible simulation equipment currently available would still fall short or the mark and that's not even taking into account the subjectiveness of the person trying to walk the mile in the bat suit.

theapportioner · #12

Nonetheless, many of you think it is -possible- for this reduction to occur, say once we know enough about neuroscience, etc.

Not really Nagel's argument. He, like Frank Jackson, would say that even if you knew everything about the brain, you still wouldn't know qualia like 'experiencing blue.' For them, the mind body problem is not an epistemological problem but an ontological one. But Nagel is not a dualist.

The_Rorschach · #13

Ontological? Perhaps. Personally, I would sooner ascribe to theories touching on linguistics and cognition rather than perception. If one accepts Qualia as an absolute - or at least a variable that lends itself as a universal stimulii- the problem of 'being' or 'experiencing' becomes one of utterance and translation. We define the box we are in using language, but language also affects the way we see the box itself - In no way am I agreeing with Bill Lycan, for the record

This being said, the problem with Plato's Cave is reduced to poor vocabulary.

Protoclown · #14

THIS HAS GOTTEN BORING AGAIN

DOES ANYONE READ SUPERMAN

ziggytrix · #15

I saw the movies. :/

The One and Only... · #16

Can they be? That would be a question which cannot be answered in this thread. If materialism is correct, however, they can be - irregardless of whether we are able to do so now.

kellychaos · #17

I don't think that language is the "end all" in the way I think about or experience things/ideas but perhaps it is a restriction on the way that I can convey these things/ideas. I'm just going to start making up new words. Who's with me?!

Brandon · #18

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

irregardless

Nice one, Vince.

ziggytrix · #19

according to dictionary.com:

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

this is going to take fucking years to purge from my vocab