How can subjective experiences exist in a purely physical world?

[GodMadeMe]

Physical Processes is one thing, but knowing the process itself seems impossible without adding that which is not the physical process itself.

If there were only physical processes then there shouldn’t be that which is not identical to physical processes. There cannot be a distinction between subjective and objective. No duality should exist. But there clearly is a distinction made evident in the fact of there being a process and my knowing or experiencing that process. Therefore a real duality exists between experience and the object of experience. They are not the same thing or identical in nature.

There is a transcendence of physical objectivity.

 

[Pope_St_Leo]

Physical Processes is one thing, but knowing the process itself seems impossible without adding that which is not the physical process itself.

If there were only physical processes then there shouldn’t be that which is not identical to physical processes. There cannot be a distinction between subjective and objective. No duality should exist. But there clearly is a distinction made evident in the fact of there being a process and my knowing or experiencing that process. Therefore a real duality exists between experience and the object of experience. They are not the same thing or identical in nature.

There is a transcendence of physical objectivity.

Which simply demonstrates the reality of Original sin, which is the principle of death, leading to a distorted intellect, rendering us ignorant, our senses disordered and prone to sin. AS a consequence, everyone’s perception of reality is tainted by the degree to which each individual is sinful/ignorant. Those who are more sinful behave more at odds with reality and unnaturally, as do those who are more ignorant. Therefore the Subjective reality, is only real to what our minds think SHOULD be real, but which is constantly tainted by sin and ignorance.

 

[GEddie]

Subjective experience is simply the reflection of the physical experience, which is lived by the body and through the sensorium, onto the microcosm of physical life which is the mind.

IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[St_Redemption]

Physical Processes is one thing, but knowing the process itself seems impossible without adding that which is not the physical process itself.

If there were only physical processes then there shouldn’t be that which is not identical to physical processes. There cannot be a distinction between subjective and objective. No duality should exist. But there clearly is a distinction made evident in the fact of there being a process and my knowing or experiencing that process. Therefore a real duality exists between experience and the object of experience. They are not the same thing or identical in nature.

There is a transcendence of physical objectivity.

Definitely. I’ve never understood it when somebody says that the mind is physical. I mean, me telling you to turn left is not 46 carbons, 17 oxygens etc., or even a certain charge pattern. Certain charge patterns of electrical activity in the brain may CORRELATE to my command…but nobody would ever mistake the electricity for the actual command itself. Or nobody would ever mistake electric patterns for a feeling of sadness. They are clearly separate but related things.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

The spirit of man is relational. Created self-other, we are individual beings participating in and relating to creation. We declined the first offer to participate in the Trinity, but through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we remain on a journey to that final Destiny. Love is perfect relationality - union with, through a giving of oneself to what is other.

We are physical-spiritual beings. As physical beings, we are continuous with the totality of the material universe, all time and space. It is our spiritual soul makes us persons, whose being is separate but joined relationally to the rest of creation and God. In the world, we relate through the senses, and also with our reason and ultimately the heart.

The subject-object duality is derived through our efforts to understand ourselves within this world. We reflect back on our perceptions, understandings and feelings about what is other, and come to know these as aspects of ourselves. From this, we can conceptualize a mind and body duality. The object is what the subject perceives and seeks to understand. We can view ourselves as physical beings - brain, and in terms of the structure that governs subjectivity - mind. Ultimately, we are a unity of body and spirit and mind-body is thus one in this world. When we die, the eternal soul remains and, it has been revealed, we will be resurrected as body-spirit at the end of mankind’s journey here on earth.

Mind and brain are one, as is subject-object, in ourselves - one humanity of physical beings created in the image of and journeying toward God.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Subjective experience means: views of experiences subjected to our own personal tastes, preferences, past experiences, etc. This is very easily explained in the context of a physical world. If we think about the brain as a machine which builds up patterns based on the data it receives, then it is easy to think of subjective experiences from a natural point of view. Specifically, subjective experience is the experience of the output of our own individual pattern matching algorithms. The patterns are unique to each individual because each individual’s patterns are derived from their unique past experiences.

As for how we are conscious of our perceptions (and knowledge) it hardly seems to me to be beyond the realm of imagination that a natural process could be responsible. I think of consciousness as our brain’s ability to perceive it’s own state. In the same way that our perception of smell is a pattern we create based on some natural interaction of molecules in the nose, our perception of thoughts and decisions is a pattern we create based on interactions of molecules in the brain.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623141911.htm

 

[Aloysium]

No one has argued that we are not physical beings.
This writing is planned and carried out by virtue of my prefrontal cortex in conjunction with many other diverse parts of my brain.
A person exists as a unity of various components. The person acts and perceives as a participant in a material universe. The perception and the action involve physical processes. Although we might be able to describe the entire interaction of a person within the environment in terms that are solely about physical processes, they do not in themselves explain much of what is going on. To know the specifics of a particular human activity, we need to understand something of the person’s experience. It is a different order of understanding that is required, that of mind, which includes such realms as psychology, sociology, theology, music and dance, political science, economics, culinary arts, etc.
I am not sure what drives reductionists. There seems to be a search for one simple answer, when it is always right there - this is what this is.

 

[GodMadeMe]

As for how we are conscious of our perceptions (and knowledge) it hardly seems to me to be beyond the realm of imagination that a natural process could be responsible. I think of consciousness as our brain’s ability to perceive it’s own state. In the same way that our perception of smell is a pattern we create based on some natural interaction of molecules in the nose, our perception of thoughts and decisions is a pattern we create based on interactions of molecules in the brain.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623141911.htm

You have explained the process involved, but you have not however explained the experience of that process and how that experience can exist without introducing a duality; and it seems pretty much inconceivable that such can be explained as a physical process without suggesting some kind of dualism. You seem to be making a circular argument.

 

[Rohzek]

You have explained the process involved, but you have not however explained the experience of that process and how that experience can exist without introducing a duality; and it seems pretty much inconceivable that such can be explained as a physical process without suggesting some kind of dualism. You seem to be making a circular argument.

You are actually getting at a problem that has been known for quite some time. And dualism or some sort of monism seems to be the only answer to it. Bertrand Russel originally formulated this thought experiment I believe:

Say a scientist has never experienced the color red. However, they measure the chemical reactions within the brain of a test subject who is experiencing red. They measure all the secretions and electrical signals and whatnot to the T. However, the scientist himself/herself still hasn’t experienced red. Can then the scientist say that they know everything about the color red? The answer is obviously no, because they themselves have never experienced the color red.

I would suggest reading or youtubing some philosophical lectures (Philosophy of Mind specifically) given by either Colin McGinn or Noam Chomsky. They talk about these issues at length. I can provide direct links to some amazing lectures on it if you are interested as well.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am not sure what drives reductionists.

I would like to know who are those “reductionists” you speak of? Because materialists are not reductionists. No half-educated materialist would argue that laws of chemistry can be reduced to the laws of physics, or that sociology can be reduced to the laws of biology. But that does not necessitate to postulate some “supernatural” explanation.

Say a scientist has never experienced the color red. However, they measure the chemical reactions within the brain of a test subject who is experiencing red. They measure all the secretions and electrical signals and whatnot to the T. However, the scientist himself/herself still hasn’t experienced red. Can then the scientist say that they know everything about the color red? The answer is obviously no, because they themselves have never experienced the color red.

It is a very interesting thought experiment. The problem is that incredible complexity of the brain. Where the subjective experience is “stored” - so to speak - cannot be localized. Unlike in a sequential computer, where datum “X” is stored at the addresses A[sub]1[/sub] through A[sub]n[/sub]. The brain has a different architecture.

Now, if the scientist would be able to localize the exact neural configuration which represents the “experiencing” the color red, and if he could transplant the same configuration into his own brain into the proper place, then he would know what it “feels” to experience “red”.

Here comes reality, and not a “thought experiment”. Some musicians can read the musical score of an opera (for example) and even though they never heard the music being played itself, they know how it would “sound”. Beethoven was totally deaf, but he knew exactly how his music will be play out by a real orchestra.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . No half-educated materialist would argue that laws of chemistry can be reduced to the laws of physics, or that sociology can be reduced to the laws of biology. But that does not necessitate to postulate some “supernatural” . . . Beethoven was totally deaf, but he knew exactly how his music will be play out by a real orchestra.

I await your material explanation for culture, philosophy . . . actually your view as to what natural force underlies the beauty of beethoven’s music will do.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I await your material explanation for culture, philosophy . . . actually your view as to what natural force underlies the beauty of beethoven’s music will do.

Sorry, you are in violation of the forum rules. I asked you “who are those reductionists you speak of”?. It is against the rules to reciprocate a question with another question. You are supposed to answer before you posit another question.

 

[Aloysium]

Sorry, you are in violation of the forum rules. I asked you “who are those reductionists you speak of”?. It is against the rules to reciprocate a question with another question. You are supposed to answer before you posit another question.

Sorry, I thought most people would know how to google/bing/yahoo/ask/aol/webcrawler these sorts of questions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

I hope that helps.

Your turn.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sorry, I thought most people would know how to google/bing/yahoo/ask/aol/webcrawler these sorts of questions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

I hope that helps.

Your turn.

No, it does not help at all. Let me know what YOU personally mean by reductionism in this particular instance. Us your own words, instead of vague links. Let me reiterate: Because materialists are not reductionists. No half-educated materialist would argue that laws of chemistry can be reduced to the laws of physics, or that sociology can be reduced to the laws of biology. But that does not necessitate to postulate some “supernatural” explanation.

 

[Aloysium]

No, it does not help at all. Let me know what YOU personally mean by reductionism in this particular instance. Us your own words, instead of vague links. Let me reiterate: Because materialists are not reductionists. No half-educated materialist would argue that laws of chemistry can be reduced to the laws of physics, or that sociology can be reduced to the laws of biology. But that does not necessitate to postulate some “supernatural” explanation.

The link was not vague at all, even if it is Wikipedia.
I do not have the time, nor the ability to condense such a large topic into one post, in which no one would be interested nor likely to read.
You seem to be suggesting that as a philosophical system it is a consistently held by a unified group that promotes it. It seems anything but.
I present the Wiki link as more or less my understanding of reductionism.
If you are interested in the topic and the information is not up to your standards, you can search elsewhere.
I am sure there are a number doctoral dissertations on the subject.

By materialist, do you mean something along the lines of: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism ?
Again, I realize it is a dumbed-down wiki version.

I don’t seem to be able to grasp your central question or concern.
If you could explain what you are looking for, I might be able to narrow my response to something more focussed.

Maybe if it is less about labelling and more about specific ideas themselves, there may be an opportunity for more clarity. I don’t know.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . more about specific ideas themselves,. . .

My view about stuff having to do with reductionism, ahem, ahem:

When we think about something, we connect with it.
I am thinking about thinking.
Words come to mind.
These words are both physical and meaningful.
They are my brain in action.
They have meaning. You are more or less understanding something.
I can look at these words and ingore their meaning, but investigate what is happening with a functional MRI, PET, SPECT, EEG and get a sensory impression of what is physically going on during the process.
This tells me about the brain.
My brain is doing what it does and this involves a myriad of inter- and intra-cellular biochemical processes.
Given the assumption that we exist in a rational universe that can be understood, there is no doubt about this.
If one were to say that all that is happening are chemical reactions in the brain, this would be wrong.
If one were to say that these chemical reactions generate some sort of “field”, for want of a better term, that is the experience of understanding and consciousness, there would be no basis for this and no way to prove it. It is not science.
Being outside the realm of science in making such suppositions, if science is about the natural, we are now in the realm of the supernatural.
The view that brain generates mind is overly complicated, is fanciful, and has a wrong feel to it.

A clearer view is achieved when we simply examine and describe who we are and what we do.

We exist in relation to everything.
Our individual being is connected with the rest of creation through our relationship with it.
One might say (I am aware that this could be misunderstood.) that being has been cleaved by He who has conceived us.
We exist ultimately in relation to Him and from there, in relation to each other and everything else.
We exist in relation even to ourselves, in that we can self-reflect.
If we look at ourselves using the lens of the material world, we see the brain.
If we try to understand ourselves as feeling, thinking and perceiving entities, we use the lens of mind or spirit.

It is very complex and simple at the same time.
There exists a person.
When a paradox arises, one does not find truth by ignoring one side of the conflict.
The answer lies in the overarching truth that includes both sides of what in themselves consituted a contradiction.

Actually, only God sees the total truth, and it is in Him that we will know all.

 

[wittgenstein]

You are actually getting at a problem that has been known for quite some time. And dualism or some sort of monism seems to be the only answer to it. Bertrand Russel originally formulated this thought experiment I believe:

Say a scientist has never experienced the color red. However, they measure the chemical reactions within the brain of a test subject who is experiencing red. They measure all the secretions and electrical signals and whatnot to the T. However, the scientist himself/herself still hasn’t experienced red. Can then the scientist say that they know everything about the color red? The answer is obviously no, because they themselves have never experienced the color red.

I would suggest reading or youtubing some philosophical lectures (Philosophy of Mind specifically) given by either Colin McGinn or Noam Chomsky. They talk about these issues at length. I can provide direct links to some amazing lectures on it if you are interested as well.

Google, “Mary’s room”. It was a thought experiment from Frank Jackson.

 

[GEddie]

Google, “Mary’s room”. It was a thought experiment from Frank Jackson.

I’ll try that.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Google, “Mary’s room”. It was a thought experiment from Frank Jackson.

Ok, I just did.

It takes place in an alternate universe, because if nothing else, a human Mary would be able to perceive the flesh-tones of her own skin. Therefore, the “experiment” does not deal with real human conditions.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rohzek]

Google, “Mary’s room”. It was a thought experiment from Frank Jackson.

Thanks, I’m not sure why I thought it was Bertrand Russel.