Is science at odds with philosophy?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That might be your point .. but its flawed because there is no way to demonstrate its assumptions. So I ask:

i) How can you establish 'the same' or different 'sensory information' is present across the two cases?
A description is required from whomever does the sensing there. Whenever they do that, they'll be using some kind of language for conveying in-common (learnt) meanings and that's how we infer sameness or different-ness. (The same is required of some third party experimenter).

ii) How can you verify a 'same reality' was present across the two cases?
The same reality which you refer to there, is never being tested for. Only the sensing person's description of their perception is being tested. Whenever they do that, (or some third party does), they'll be using some kind of language for conveying in-common (learnt) meanings. Only where one description is inconsistent with those sampled from across some broader population of 'healthy' minds, can we then infer an 'unhealthy' mind may be present but that's never been about some 'absolute' reality.

[/quote]I'm not suggesting that this can be established, I'm saying that there are, in principle, two different situations.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not suggesting that this can be established, I'm saying that there are, in principle, two different situations.

What's the principle then? Untestable belief?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I dont think we can extrapolate from Deep Dream results or any sort of visual hallucinations to the kind of life altering experience some people have in various "mystical" states. I think you might be minimizing the experience. Have you ever read any of the mystics with a sympathetic ear, appreciating their stories with an effort to understand - before applying skeptical resistance? Just so you have a sense of what youre rejecting before you reject it, even if your conclusion ends up being totally justified.

I'm not suggesting that level of extrapolation - simply that the type of image distortion seen in such systems is a familiar type of perceptual distortion in psychedelic experiences, suggesting that the relaxation of feedback suppression that allows salient aspects to echo or 'ring' through the perceptual model is a common feature of such neural networks. IOW, it supports the idea that at least one type of unusual perceptual imagery can be the result of the way the information is processed rather than extracting additional information from the incoming signal.

There is another objection to the idea that we may be extracting additional information from our sensory input, which is that we have a good understanding of the various sensory modalities, their ranges and capacities. and we can track how the spike trains they produce correspond to the stimuli they receive. So we know what the incoming data is from which the perceptual model is constructed. There's certainly a lot more data available in the environment that we remain unaware of because it is out of range of our senses, but we can't use it to construct our perceptual models.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What's the principle then? Untestable belief?

One situation is where all the information in the input signal is processed in both the normal and abnormal contexts; the other situation is where only part of the information is processed in the normal context and more/different information is processed in the abnormal context.

These are different models for information processing in the normal and abnormal perception contexts.

I think the available evidence favours the former model. It's probably testable - we have a pretty good understanding of the sensory modalities and the information they provide.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not suggesting that level of extrapolation - simply that the type of image distortion seen in such systems is a familiar type of perceptual distortion in psychedelic experiences, suggesting that the relaxation of feedback suppression that allows salient aspects to echo or 'ring' through the perceptual model is a common feature of such neural networks. IOW, it supports the idea that at least one type of unusual perceptual imagery can be the result of the way the information is processed rather than extracting additional information from the incoming signal.

There is another objection to the idea that we may be extracting additional information from our sensory input, which is that we have a good understanding of the various sensory modalities, their ranges and capacities. and we can track how the spike trains they produce correspond to the stimuli they receive. So we know what the incoming data is from which the perceptual model is constructed. There's certainly a lot more data available in the environment that we remain unaware of because it is out of range of our senses, but we can't use it to construct our perceptual models.

I dont think I'm talking about image distortion, or an expanded wavelength response. The "visuals" are beside the point according to pretty much everyone who describes a life changing experience. Its almost like - speaking metaphorically - they are now able to comprehend the language that was always there written on the things they were seeing.

 

[dlamberth]

See post #254. The meaning we assign to the word 'reality' depends on how we go about doing that. @stevevw does it by the belief way and science follows the scientific method.
Both ways are mind dependent and are objectively testable under science's mind dependent reality hypothesis.
Aka: science does in fact, recognise what @stevevw is on about.

I'd like to offer up a third option to finding meaning to reality which would be by way of gnosis. Or another way of putting it, knowledge gained through the experience of direct inner experiences. I don't know how science can get into the Human experience for that kind of testing though. How does science get into the experience of the bonding Love that a mother is experiencing for her new born child?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Have you ever read any of the mystics with a sympathetic ear, appreciating their stories with an effort to understand - before applying skeptical resistance? Just so you have a sense of what youre rejecting before you reject it, even if your conclusion ends up being totally justified.

I've read some stuff that might be considered mystical - by people like Burroughs, Huxley, Castaneda, Jung, Crowley, McKenna...

I'm not rejecting the experiences - as I said, I've had memorable experiences of that kind myself, but I find the idea that they are experiences of the objectively real to be no more convincing than the claim that dreams are experiences of the objectively real. YMMV.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I dont think I'm talking about image distortion, or an expanded wavelength response. The "visuals" are beside the point according to pretty much everyone who describes a life changing experience. Its almost like - speaking metaphorically - they are now able to comprehend the language that was always there written on the things they were seeing.

Yes, there is a range of interesting 'spurious salience' experiences that are also reported in dream experiences (the dream kind tend to take the form of waking up with the secret of the universe or some great wisdom, and either forgetting it in short order or writing it down before going back to sleep, only to find later that it's gibberish or completely mundane).

But they range from significant personal messages from events or objects (Casteneda's 'affirmations from the world around us', or the schizophrenic's personal messages from car number plates) - possibly a form of superstitious or magical thinking, through the gamut to sensations of being [at one with] the universe, knowing or understanding everything, communicating with the collective or universal unconscious (e.g. Jung), and so on.

One of the reasons that psilocybin (magic mushrooms) is beginning to be used for treatment-resistant depression is that it can trigger intense sensations of salience and relevance in the world, feelings of deep interest or love for the things in the world. This seems to reset their worldview at a deep level. I found some of my experiences with it to be similar (but without the initial depression!). But the emotional response depends on the context - some seriously negative emotions (fear, anxiety) can also be triggered.

As previously mentioned, many of these effects can be connected to a reduction in suppression and increase in cross-talk among brain areas associated with the emotions, and similar changes in areas associated with the construction of self, e.g. sense of identity, unity, bounds, location, agency, body ownership, perspective or viewpoint, etc. These areas have been identified from the effects of brain damage in those areas and/or stimulation during brain surgery.

It's also worth noting that the content of such experiences is often related to particular cultural memes or beliefs.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm not rejecting the experiences - as I said, I've had memorable experiences of that kind myself, but I find the idea that they are experiences of the objectively real to be no more convincing than the claim that dreams are experiences of the objectively real. YMMV.

This is where I'm having the hardest time understanding things. That's because I can't think of single Human experiences that can be tested objectively. The only way that I'm aware of doing so is to step outside and apart from the Human experience and look at it from the that perspective. Which still paints a pretty subjective picture. The naked authentic bonding Love that a mother has for her new born infant is real. As we stand outside of her, we even can see it as it happens. It's totally subjective, but very real.

 

[SelfSim]

One situation is where all the information in the input signal is processed in both the normal and abnormal contexts; the other situation is where only part of the information is processed in the normal context and more/different information is processed in the abnormal context.

These are different models for information processing in the normal and abnormal perception contexts.

I think the available evidence favours the former model. It's probably testable - we have a pretty good understanding of the sensory modalities and the information they provide.

And I can't see any problems in creating a testable model where the aim is to research normal and abnormal perception.

That's entirely different from claiming that some model produces any objective evidence for distinguishing 'the sameness' of, or different 'sensory information' of, or the 'same reality' being present across the two different cases.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is where I'm having the hardest time understanding things. That's because I can't think of single Human experiences that can be tested objectively. The only way that I'm aware of doing so is to step outside and apart from the Human experience and look at it from the that perspective. Which still paints a pretty subjective picture. The naked authentic bonding Love that a mother has for her new born infant is real. As we stand outside of her, we even can see it as it happens. It's totally subjective, but very real.

The way we usually try to distinguish the objectively real from the internally generated is to look for widespread agreement on specifics and details that would not be expected from internal constructions. This can be tricky, because people's recollection can be influenced by other experiences they hear or read about, i.e. we tend to align our narratives, but if you can get detailed independent reports it should be possible (barring collusion).

I don't see any such consistencies beyond common archetypes and cultural memes, but I haven't made any serious attempt to look for them.

Sure, emotions and their effects on behaviour are real, no one's denying that.

 

[SelfSim]

So we know what the incoming data is from which the perceptual model is constructed.

No .. we know what the sensory organs produce from an EM spectrum model perspective.

There's certainly a lot more data available in the environment that we remain unaware of because it is out of range of our senses, but we can't use it to construct our perceptual models.

Yet we still use it in forming our testable models, which then inform our perceptions.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd like to offer up a third option to finding meaning to reality which would be by way of gnosis. Or another way of putting it, knowledge gained through the experience of direct inner experiences. I don't know how science can get into the Human experience for that kind of testing though. How does science get into the experience of the bonding Love that a mother is experiencing for her new born child?

Easy .. its a mind dependent way a mother typically assigns her meaning for what's real to her. Other mothers might agree .. some might not.
Good luck with it.

 

[SelfSim]

The only way that I'm aware of doing so is to step outside and apart from the Human experience and look at it from the that perspective. Which still paints a pretty subjective picture.

Yes. Stepping outside and apart from the Human perspective, is still a human perspective.

The naked authentic bonding Love that a mother has for her new born infant is real. As we stand outside of her, we even can see it as it happens. It's totally subjective, but very real.

I agree. Its a mind dependent way of assigning meaning to what's real for many mothers. I know several fathers who wouldn't agree though (and that might end up as being, what, .. 52%(?) of the total human population that it might not satisfactorily work for).

 

[durangodawood]

Easy .. its a mind dependent way a mother typically assigns her meaning for what's real to her. Other mothers might agree .. some might not.
Good luck with it.

What other mothers? And if they don't agree at first, you should be able to fix that.

 

[SelfSim]

What other mothers?

???
You exclude other instances of mothers from describing the bonding experiences with their children as being real?

And if they don't agree at first, you should be able to fix that.

In what way are you suggesting?

 

[durangodawood]

In what way are you suggesting?

Use your mind!

 

[SelfSim]

Use your mind!

Well of course my mind will be involved in asking them and then getting their meanings.
However, I'm not controlling their minds with my mind. Is that what your implying there?
I'm well aware of other minds .. (as is the objective MDR hypothesis and thus, science).

 

[dlamberth]

Easy .. its a mind dependent way a mother typically assigns her meaning for what's real to her. Other mothers might agree .. some might not.
Good luck with it.

I don't understanding how Love can be assigned like that. The bonding Love with a new born infant happens outside of meaning, it's a Heart felt experience of connection.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't understanding how Love can be assigned like that. The bonding Love with a new born infant happens outside of meaning, it's a Heart felt experience of connection.

Love isn't being assigned .. the feeling the mother experiences is what she means by love .. and its real to her. All of that, is demonstrably being done by her mind and if you want to find out, just ask her what's going on. The evidence will for that (and the hypothesis) will be found from her descriptions.
Some mothers may not verify the same feelings being associated with what they mean by love.