In Nature vs. Nurture, A Voice for Nature

MIT ^ | 5/5/04 | Nicholas Wade

[PatrickHenry]

Whether Joan was “crazy” or “sane,” the fact is: She changed history.

You've enhanced my knowledge of Joan, which before now consisted mostly of seeing the Ingrid Bergman movie. The only point I was trying to make -- with which I think you agree -- is that we'll never know, indeed we can't know, if Joan imagined her voices or if something objectively real was speaking to her. That is the nature of subjective experiences. They can motivate us, they can inspire us, but regardless of what we may believe, we can never demonstrate that such experiences have a source which is external to ourselves.

[tpaine]

betty boop:
Whether Joan was "crazy" or "sane," the fact is: She changed history.

_____________________________________


The only point I was trying to make -- with which I think you agree -- is that we'll never know, indeed we can't know, if Joan imagined her voices or if something objectively real was speaking to her.

161 -PH-


______________________________________


Good point, which will be lost on the "ghost within" crowd.
-- They can not admit, they cannot 'agree', that we can't base our government, our constitutional rule of law, -- on subjective experiences that our rights were 'granted' by a higher being.

What men claim 'God' granted, they can also claim he revoked.

We must agree upon the fact that our inalienable rights are based on the rational, natural product of our self evident free will for liberty, -- and that no man or group of men can be allowed to violate them.

Incredibly, that ~was~ agreed upon in 1787 & in 1791.
One wonders why we still have to argue about it.

[betty boop]

What men claim 'God' granted, they can also claim he revoked.

Here is my personal testament in response to your claim, tpaine, above:

Not only is God not an "Indian-giver," but God does not lie.

[Doctor Stochastic]

One then skates rather close to some of the Islamic scientific texts. "By the Will of Allah the two hydrogen atmos combine with the oxygen to produce water."

[Doctor Stochastic]

This raises the question of how to tell if the voices are "valid" in some sense. Following the voices isn't always a good idea. Some people drive the English out of France and some just slaughter their children.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A comparison with Teresa of Avila is useful.

[tpaine]

What men claim 'God' granted, they can also claim he revoked.

Here is my personal testament in response to your claim, tpaine, above:
Not only is God not an "Indian-giver," but God does not lie.

Odd reply betty.
I quite clearly wrote that "men" claim, -- thus, -- they can also make a claim revoking such a claim.

You all right? - I'm not challenging your concept of God. Never have. You know better.

[betty boop]

...we'll never know, indeed we can't know, if Joan imagined her voices or if something objectively real was speaking to her. That is the nature of subjective experiences. They can motivate us, they can inspire us, but regardless of what we may believe, we can never demonstrate that such experiences have a source which is external to ourselves.

So what, PH??? Maybe truth must be validated internally, "subjectively," and not externally, "objectively" -- in the latter case as if Truth could be rationally understood as just any kind of discrete observation being conducted under laboratory conditions, according to the rules of the scientific method.

Truth has a "discrete" nature in that it presents and -- in the longer run -- dominates in particular concrete situations. But Truth would have no power in concrete situations if it lacked universality.

Patrick, seemingly all your favorite biologists say that all of life (and human living) really is completely "objective," or at least ought to be. On this view, biological existence is subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. What we know as Life is constituted solely, exclusively of very "clever" matter (there is nothing else). It operates according to determinist rules. It has absolutely no purpose in view beyond executing a Random Walk through space and time. Darwin tells us that it will present a very fine spectacle in passing.

But let's play turnaround here, and imagine that "the subjective" is the actual test of the truth of reality on the very largest scales, propagating downward from there. In that context, "objective tests" would only be useful ways of validating particular questions relative to concrete existents, with a view to probing their real nature. That is, they would be useful tools that man can use to extend the range of his observational powers.

What they would not be, however, is any kind of Rosetta Stone providing the key to the interpretation of the entire range of human knowledge and experience taken as an historical whole. That seems to be a project entirely outside or beyond the reach of science altogether.

On that note, I must say good night, Patrick!

[betty boop]

..."men" claim, -- thus, -- they can also make a claim revoking such a claim.

"Men" can claim whatever they want to claim, or think they can claim and get away with. However, my sense is: When it comes to claims, Reality is a very exacting and uncompromising "editor" of gratuitous human wishes, hopes, and dreams.

On the other hand, God does not play "footsie" with his creatures.

If He says something, He MEANS IT.

And it won't be a "different story" next week, when the "situation is different," or visions of personal advantage in the minds of the "powerful" shifts the "equation" in favor of their own personal gain....

Good night, dear tpaine! I've got to turn in for now....

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for these excellent and informative posts!

But let's play turnaround here, and imagine that "the subjective" is the actual test of the truth of reality on the very largest scales, propagating downward from there. In that context, "objective tests" would only be useful ways of validating particular questions relative to concrete existents, with a view to probing their real nature. That is, they would be useful tools that man can use to extend the range of his observational powers.

What they would not be, however, is any kind of Rosetta Stone providing the key to the interpretation of the entire range of human knowledge and experience taken as an historical whole. That seems to be a project entirely outside or beyond the reach of science altogether.

Indeed. The arrogance of mankind astonishes me when some presume that nothing can exist beyond their ability to know it.

[PatrickHenry]

A comparison with Teresa of Avila is useful.

A most interesting individual.

[PatrickHenry]

So what, PH??? [That is, what if "we'll never know, indeed we can't know, if Joan imagined her voices or if something objectively real was speaking to her."] Maybe truth must be validated internally, "subjectively," and not externally, "objectively" ...

You dismiss the whole topic with "so what?" I guess we ought to drop it. I see a gigantic chasm between objectively verifiable facts on the one hand and subjective experience on the other. Gigantic. You seem not to see this, or if you do see it, you regard it as no big deal. I think we'll just have to let the subject go without agreement.

Patrick, seemingly all your favorite biologists say that all of life (and human living) really is completely "objective," or at least ought to be. On this view, biological existence is subject to the laws of chemistry and physics.

I don't really know if they all say that. That is, if they embrace what we've been discussing as "metaphysical naturalism" and would thus assert that nothing exists which cannot be objectively verified. Maybe they all believe that, maybe they don't. I don't, and I suspect they don't -- not all of them. But like all scientists in any field, their work is only with things that can be objectively verified. They use procedural materialism when doing science, whether they're metaphysical naturalists or not. That what makes them good and successful scientists.

But let's play turnaround here, and imagine that "the subjective" is the actual test of the truth of reality on the very largest scales, propagating downward from there.

I don't know how that could work in practice. What if my subective voices tell me something very different from your subjective voices?

In that context, "objective tests" would only be useful ways of validating particular questions relative to concrete existents, with a view to probing their real nature.

That would mean any a scientific finding that contradicted a "subjectively determined" truth would be invalid. It would make science subservient to mysticism. We've been there. I don't want to go back.

[betty boop]

I see a gigantic chasm between objectively verifiable facts on the one hand and subjective experience on the other. Gigantic. You seem not to see this, or if you do see it, you regard it as no big deal. I think we'll just have to let the subject go without agreement.

Of course I see this. Why should I regard this as a "big deal?" It is part of the structure of life. You seem to think that subjective experience is somehow beyond the pale. Well, it is beyond the pale -- of science. Not every question is a scientific question, with a scientific answer. That doesn't mean that what science cannot address does not exist, or has inferior status. Perhaps science, for you, is the key to certainty. But life is uncertain, through and through. That's not a scientific observation; but I do believe it is a truthful one.

[PatrickHenry]

Not every question is a scientific question, with a scientific answer.

We agree.

That doesn't mean that what science cannot address does not exist, or has inferior status.

Agreed. Unless one is a metaphysical naturalist, which we are not.

Perhaps science, for you, is the key to certainty.

For scientific questions, it's the best way yet found for gaining knowledge. There ain't any certainty in this world, except in subjects like geometry.

But life is uncertain, through and through. That's not a scientific observation; but I do believe it is a truthful one.

Indeed.

[tpaine]

betty boop wrote:
Whether Joan was "crazy" or "sane," the fact is: She changed history.

_____________________________________


The only point I was trying to make -- with which I think you agree -- is that we'll never know, indeed we can't know, if Joan imagined her voices or if something objectively real was speaking to her.
161 -PH-

______________________________________


Good point, which will be lost on the "ghost within" crowd.

-- They can not admit, they cannot 'agree', that we can't base our government, our constitutional rule of law, -- on subjective experiences that our rights were 'granted' by a higher being.

What men claim 'God' granted, they can also claim he revoked.

We must agree upon the fact that our inalienable rights are based on the rational, natural product of our self evident free will for liberty, -- and that no man or group of men can be allowed to violate them.

Incredibly, that ~was~ agreed upon in 1787 & in 1791.
One wonders why we still have to argue about it.
162 posted on 05/11/2004 8:29:51 PM PDT by tpaine

_____________________________________


betty boop wrote: ...
"Men" can claim whatever they want to claim, or think they can claim and get away with.

However, my sense is:
When it comes to claims, Reality is a very exacting and uncompromising "editor" of gratuitous human wishes, hopes, and dreams.

_____________________________________


You were arguing just above, -- FOR Joans 'subjective visions'.. -- Now you write "Reality is exacting"..

Frankly Betty, you seem to be writing most anything, from any POV, just for the sake of argument.

None of your points have made much sense.

[betty boop]

Now you write "Reality is exacting."

It certainly was for Joan. Don't forget Joan so-called "subjective visions" were a part of Reality.

[tpaine]

Mental 'visions' are reality?


Are we playing some sort of word game, Betty?

[balrog666]

[PatrickHenry]

Don't forget Joan so-called "subjective visions" were a part of Reality.

Because I think this is an important issue, and because we're trying to be philosophically precise in this thread, I would word that slightly differently in order to preserve the very important distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. I'd say that what was verifiably real -- objectively real -- was a woman named Joan who seemed to be sincere, and who said she was having a subjective experience which she said were voices, and she acted in accordance with what she said her voices told her. We can never objectively verify the truth of her claims about hearing voices, but we certainly can verify her actions -- to the extent that anything can be historically verified. It certainly seems as if she sincerely believed she was hearing voices, and maybe she was; but we will never know.

[longshadow]

Festival of Subjective Placemarkers