BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Objectivity is Our Shared Subjectivity
coberst
post Apr 11, 2010, 06:58 AM
Post #1


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167



Objectivity is Our Shared Subjectivity

Fingerprint and now DNA analysis are what I would call the epitome of objective truth. I say this because these two human characteristics are defining evidence upon which we judge a person guilty and thereby subject to the death penalty.

Fingerprints are very subjective in that they can change substantially as result of very subjective circumstances. My fingerprint can change significantly today from what they were yesterday.

How is it possible that some things so subjective and unique as DNA and fingerprints can determine objectively whether a person is executed or set free?

Fingerprints and DNA objectivity is based upon the structural integrity of both. That is to say that because both human characteristics are structured for every normal human being in exactly the same manner we can identify one unique individual within billions of individuals. So it is with the case of human experience. Because all normal humans structure cognition in the same manner we can identify that which is objective in human thoughts.

Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.


My second son, Mike, was a blanket boy. He spent a good part of his first 24 months with a thumb in his mouth and a blanket in his arms. If we left the house with Mike we checked and double checked that we did not leave his ‘blanky’ behind. After 24 months the blanky was nothing more than a scrap of shredded cloth. He would not accept a substitute.

Absolute truth is our blanky. DickandJane become very anxious when their security blanket, i.e. absolute truth, is not in hand.

Objectivism is a fundamentalist philosophy. It believes that reality is something external to the brain and that the task of the brain is to gain knowledge about this external reality.

Right/wrong and true/false are considered to be objective criteria rather than subjective criteria. Objectivism posits perfect knowledge and assumes such knowledge is obtainable. I think that such views have been discredited.

The myth of objectivism says that: the world is made up of objects that have properties completely independent of those who perceive them; we understand our world through our consciously constructed concepts and categories; “we can say things that are objectively, absolutely true, and unconditionally true and false about it…we cannot rely upon subjective judgments…science can ultimately give a correct, definitive, and general account of reality”; words have fixed meaning that can describe reality correctly. To be objective is to be rational.

The myth of subjectivism informs us that our senses and intuition is our best guide. Feelings are the most important elements of our lives. Aesthetic sensibilities and moral practices are all totally subjective. “Art and poetry transcend rationality and objectivity and put us in touch with more important reality of our feelings and intuitions. We gain this awareness through imagination rather than reason…Science is of no use when it comes to the most important things in our lives.”

The new paradigm of cognitive science rejects both objectivism and subjectivism. I believe in this new cognitive science, which theorizes that objectivity is a shared subjectivity.

Objectivity is shared subjectivity. Objective truth is a misnomer; there is only shared truth/false and there is only shared good/bad.

Objectivity is shared subjectivity. We create reality in our brain. If you and I create the same reality then we have a shared subjectivity. We cannot know the thing-in-itself, as Kant informs us and is easily recognized if we focus upon it.

I would say that reality comes in two forms; the thing-in-itself is the reality that Kant informs us that we cannot know and then we have the reality that our brain creates. This reality we create is aided by the senses and is congruent with how our body interacts with the thing-in-itself. If the interaction between the thing-in-itself and the creature’s embodied mind is too far off--the creature quickly becomes toast.

Most people are objectivist in many ways; do you still comfort yourself with blanky?


Quotes from Moral Imagination Mark Johnson (coauthor of Philosophy in the Flesh)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Apr 11, 2010, 10:33 AM
Post #2


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE(coberst @ Apr 11, 2010, 04:58 PM) *

Objectivity is Our Shared Subjectivity



Most people are objectivist in many ways; do you still comfort yourself with blanky?[/b]

Quotes from Moral Imagination Mark Johnson (coauthor of Philosophy in the Flesh)



I have a existential crysis knocking on my door because of that. We love our safety, our beliefs, objectivity was my blanky for a while when i leaved my parent´s religion. Now im thinking i just change one blanky for another or maybe was the same but just washed. I must learn to make ambiguity my friend instead of my enemy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coberst
post Apr 12, 2010, 11:36 AM
Post #3


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 721
Joined: May 21, 2007
Member No.: 11167





Myth--traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain practice, belief, or natural phenomenon


What all humans share is our cognitive structuring of our experiences and all of our thinking structures. Anything that we might claim to be objective is based upon our cognitive structuring, which acts upon anything that we might call reality.

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that is said to make us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.


“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize.

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Quotes from Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff and Johnson
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cale-Construct33
post May 31, 2010, 09:54 PM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 18
Joined: May 31, 2010
Member No.: 32792



When it comes to issues of objectivity and subjectivity, I begin to get the sense that we are merely using two different methods of describing the same thing. Science does force us to draw lines and make clear distinctions between concepts, but time again these have proven to be quite superfluous when all that needs to be done is find either a more cogent definition, or a more fundamental concept.

I believe the concept you're looking for with "Objectivity is our shared subjectivity" is inter-subjectivity. So far physics has done a terrific job tearing down any notion of an 'objective reality' via Quantum Mechanics, and the invalidation of Bell's Theorum has shown that reality manifests through the act of observation. An independent reality cannot be proven to exist outside of our conscious perception, therefore, the entire universe exists, or is created, within our minds.

Unfortunately, i believe that scientific knowledge may be "trying to grasp the wind" until we can figure out how to reconcile human consciousness with quantum mechanics, because we need to be able to fully understand our relationship as a conscious observer with the observation itself, and how the act of observation influences what is actually observed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th November 2017 - 11:27 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles