Science and Objectivity

[exchemist]

22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- My point is "what if" nature has more than space, time, energy and matter to offer? Do we not investigate it, because it is beyond "set" parameters? And I raise the "what if" not just to do so, but because of recent findings that, I contend, do not square well with a physicalist interpretation of the world. I know too little of the mathematical model of nature to determine whether or not it is amendable to more than properties of matter and radiation and functions of space and time.

2- With some of the more recent research findings, I respectfully beg to differ on your views about mind.

 

OK, you refer to two sets of recent "findings" here, for which you have not provided details. I presume you mean findings of science, but perhaps you could confirm.  

One, you think, suggests a physicalist interpretation of the world may be inadequate, and the other  you think suggests mind is an entity, rather than an activity of the brain. I'm intrigued by this. Perhaps if you can give a reference or a short description it would help me understand what you have in mind. Can you do that?   

 

Edited September 11 by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Plants having intelligence is an hypothesis, is labeled as such in the paper, and you admit that an hypothesis is distinct from the evidence supporting it. That there are ~70 definitions of intelligence suggests that this is not an objective issue. It sounds more like equivocation - using a word with more than one definition and using it interchangeably in situations where different definitions would apply 

Many such studies as the one indicated below

A sign of possible plant intelligence could be that plants can communicate

Plants appear to communicate with microbiota in soil

https://phys.org/news/2024-07-hidden-allies-root-microbiota-leaf.html

Measurable possible evidence of this

The relationship between the plant and microbiota is autonomic or symbiotic?

A very small, tentative and possible step towards establishing plant communication.

Observational evidence abounds that plant may be capable of communicating. More empirical evidence to come when science starts taking the subject matter more seriously.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

One detail to consider it's physicality is oft considered as being measurable. Particularly under QFT treatments and serves as a distinction between operator action and propogator action in terms of Feymann integrals. Ie internal wavy lines represent what is commonly called virtual particles which individually are not measurable.

Might help with defining physicality.

Respectfully, this is above my level of comprehension.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

The flaw with this statement is that anything that can interact with a physical system, i.e. be somehow observable/measurable, would have to itselft be physical.  That is pretty much the defining feature of physical entities. This is the core problem with dualism, that it seeks to make a false division between phenomena.  

 

Disagree; thoughts modifying brain structure.

Edited September 11 by Luc Turpin

[Mordred]

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

Respectfully, this is above my level of comprehension.

Simple way to think of it is any measurable quantity is a physical quantity.

Example color is measurable so it's a physical property.

Here is a short list of physical properties.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

 

Edited September 11 by Mordred

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, Mordred said:

Simple way to think of it is any measurable quantity is a physical quantity.

Example color is measurable so it's a physical property.

The physical property of color is meaurable through wavelenghts, but the qualia of color cannot be measured. Then does qualia not become a non-physical property of color?

[Mordred]

Quality can be measured via Grey tones as well as percentage of absorption, reflection/Refraction. 

Good example being the blackest black record holder paint.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Observational evidence abounds that plant may be capable of communicating.

But that’s not the topic under discussion here, remember?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The physical property of color is meaurable through wavelenghts, but the qualia of color cannot be measured. Then does qualia not become a non-physical property of color?

The qualia depends on the individual, making it subjective, but you could measure reactions from a large number of people and quantify the reaction; e.g. a color known to suppress aggressiveness, and this has been measured.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Miller_pink

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Quality can be measured via Grey tones as well as percentage of absorption, reflection/Refraction. 

Good example being the blackest black record holder paint.

Qualia, not quality “the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.”

[Mordred]

Sorry misread that earlier thanks for the catch +1

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

On 9/10/2024 at 9:14 PM, studiot said:

1-Well I can't agree with this.

2- What you are claiming is that I can't have objective thoughts by definition.  Since my thoughts can't exist without me, they can't be objective.

3-But also aren't you contradicting yourself ?

4- I can't agree with this either.As far as i can tell a measurement on the Mohs scale is totally objective.

5-It has been suggested that there is some scale of objectivity.

6- But I am suggesting that it is not as simple as that and this is the reason everyone is getting tangled up.

My boiling point example suggests that subjective and objective classifications are not mutually exclusive as required by the ancient greeks( remember them?)

Some situations have characteristics of one or the other, some situations have characteristics of both and some situations have characteristics of neither.

 

1- The definition is not mine, but one often provided by those in the business of defining the term.

2- A lot of ourthoughts, specially those based on evidence, are very-very objective though; they are just not perfectly objective

3- In what sense am-I contradicting myself?

4- Out of all of the scientific philosophers that I consulted, none claimed that perfect objectivity existed. However, some scientists do believe in perfect objectivity.

5- I agree that there is possibly some kind of a scale of objectivity; and for scientists, mostly dependent upon evidence.

6- And I agree that it is not as simple as that; but perfect objectivity is challenged by philosophers, apparently objects cannot be detached from subjects, and as you state, subjective and objective experiences cannot be unentangled from one another.

 

 

1)  It is yours insofar as you introduced it with the words

On 9/10/2024 at 9:14 PM, studiot said:

  On 9/9/2024 at 8:01 PM, Luc Turpin said:

To me, the best borrowed definition is that objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it.

This is the only definition you have offered  (that I can find) and your words certainly suggest me me that you endorse the definition, regardless of where it came from.

2)  You have once again failed to read my short and simple text properly, apparantly preferring the complex and convoluted.

How can any of my thoughts be independent of me ?

Yet your definition demands that they are just that for obectivity.

 

3)  In your 'borrowed' definition independance is required.

yet in your later own definition you say that

On 9/10/2024 at 9:14 PM, studiot said:

  On 9/10/2024 at 2:27 PM, Luc Turpin said:

As for my own definition, I believe that it goes in the same direction as it stipulates that there is no independence between object and subject.

there is no independence

 

A direct contradiction.

 

4)  This is neither discussion nor answer to the very simple example I offered.

Do you or don't you consider Mohs scale perfectly ofjective ?

If not why not ?

 

5)  Hedging your bets all ways huh?

 

6)  Again you fail to find my simple point that the subject of objective v subjective is much more complicated than at first meets the eye.  If you prefer other language any scale of objectivity/subjectivity must be multi factorial.

 

 

I amk trying very hard to hold a discussion with you about a subject I had not given enough proper thought to before, but is very interesting.

Your responses seem to me to be terse, defensive and entrenched for no reason I can understand.

[Luc Turpin]

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And some philosophers believe in a perfect world, but not everyone is correct; some think the bell tolls for them...

And I believe in a messy world; so much so that "truths" may be lying in full view without us even noticing them. Following a well worn path is not conducive to finding unexpected things.

 

18 hours ago, exchemist said:

1-OK, you refer to two sets of recent "findings" here, for which you have not provided details. I presume you mean findings of science, but perhaps you could confirm.  

2-One, you think, suggests a physicalist interpretation of the world may be inadequate, and the other  you think suggests mind is an entity, rather than an activity of the brain. I'm intrigued by this. Perhaps if you can give a reference or a short description it would help me understand what you have in mind. Can you do that?   

 

1- Yes, numerous scientific findings that I have posted in other forum threads. 

2- A physicalist interpretation is adequate, but insufficient in explaining all of nature. Mind from brain or mind through brain? And is mind all over nature? That is all that I will add here as we are off topic. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

1-But that’s not the topic under discussion here, remember?

2-The qualia depends on the individual, making it subjective, but you could measure reactions from a large number of people and quantify the reaction; e.g. a color known to suppress aggressiveness, and this has been measured.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Miller_pink

3-Qualia, not quality “the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.”

1- Agree; off course, but I was challenged to provide evidence which I believe I did!

2- Qualia is individual, subjective and can be indirectly measured - yes. Then does qualia not become a non-physical property of nature for which science has no answer and must explore?

3- "Stimulation of the senses by phenomena" can be measured by science.

14 hours ago, studiot said:

1)  It is yours insofar as you introduced it with the words This is the only definition you have offered  (that I can find) and your words certainly suggest me me that you endorse the definition, regardless of where it came from.

2)  You have once again failed to read my short and simple text properly, apparantly preferring the complex and convoluted.How can any of my thoughts be independent of me ?Yet your definition demands that they are just that for obectivity.

3)  In your 'borrowed' definition independance is required.yet in your later own definition you say that  there is no independence. A direct contradiction.

4)  This is neither discussion nor answer to the very simple example I offered. Do you or don't you consider Mohs scale perfectly ofjective ? If not why not ?

5)  Hedging your bets all ways huh?

6)  Again you fail to find my simple point that the subject of objective v subjective is much more complicated than at first meets the eye.  If you prefer other language any scale of objectivity/subjectivity must be multi factorial.

7)I amk trying very hard to hold a discussion with you about a subject I had not given enough proper thought to before, but is very interesting. Your responses seem to me to be terse, defensive and entrenched for no reason I can understand.

1- The point that I was trying to make is that ownership is not mine, but fully endorse the definition's interpretation of objectivity.

2- Definition - Objectivity means something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it. There is no perfect objectivity as nothing is totally independent of subject perception. But, relative objectivity (less to more) does exist. Therefore, your thoughts are dependent of you to a high degree as you cannot separate them from subject (you) perception.

3- No contradiction; see 2-

4- According to the definition given, Mohs scales benefit from a high degree of objectivity, but not perfect objectivity as some form of subject perception is required to make the determination of scale.

5- Not anymore!

6- My interpretation is that in a less objective situation, there is more subjectivity and in a more objective situation, there is less subjectivity.

7- True, I am on the defensive as a result of the reception that I have had with past posts of mine. 

17 hours ago, Mordred said:

Simple way to think of it is any measurable quantity is a physical quantity.

Example color is measurable so it's a physical property.

Here is a short list of physical properties.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

 

Does something that can only be indirectly measured count as being physical?

[exchemist]

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

 

1- Yes, numerous scientific findings that I have posted in other forum threads. 

 

What findings, then, posted where? You have posted 25 pages of posts. I cannot be expected to trawl through all of them in the hope of identifying what you are talking about.  

[Mordred]

23 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

Does something that can only be indirectly measured count as being physical?

When it leads to measurable physical effects then yes example being DM. We have high confidence that DM exists but the only evidence is indirect. 

 Often times indirect physical evidence later leads to discovery. For example measurable physical particle processes that we cannot account for often lead to discovery of a new particle or particle interaction as further research becomes available.

DM if you think about it fits in this category. 

Edited September 12 by Mordred

[Luc Turpin]

21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What findings, then, posted where? You have posted 25 pages of posts. I cannot be expected to trawl through all of them in the hope of identifying what you are talking about.  

I will find another venue and identify those findings that I am talking about

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

When it leads to measurable physical effects then yes example being DM. We have high confidence that DM exists but the only evidence is indirect. 

 Often times indirect physical evidence later leads to discovery. For example measurable physical particle processes that we cannot account for often lead to discovery of a new particle or particle interaction as further research becomes available.

DM if you think about it fits in this category. 

Very interesting as my contention is that we currently have indirect evidence of mind being all over nature and not necessarily working the way that we thought it would; but, veering off topic again.

[dimreepr]

44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

And I believe in a messy world; so much so that "truths" may be lying in full view without us even noticing them. Following a well worn path is not conducive to finding unexpected things.

That's your problem, you're trying to shoe horn your beliefs into a world you don't really understand; following a well worn path may be just a way to find your truth as it fit's with reality.

You don't need to find unexpected thing's in order to feel special, and even if you do find it, it's only a momentary experience, a brief hit of a chemical narcotic, a well worn path is far more likely to lead to something we need to understand... 😉

[Mordred]

38 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

Very interesting as my contention is that we currently have indirect evidence of mind being all over nature and not necessarily working the way that we thought it would; but, veering off topic again.

As physical processes involve kinematic motion hence the SM model langrangian which applies path integrals via principle of Least action. 

You would have an incredibly difficult time equating anything relating of mind to those physical processes under physics. Yes I would consider that off topic 

Edited September 12 by Mordred

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

And is mind all over nature?

Not your mind, a tree can communicate with other tree's but they have yet to rise up against their human oppressor's. 😉

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Does something that can only be indirectly measured count as being physical?

Depends on what constitutes direct. Does that mean naked-eye observation? Nobody has ever seen an electron. Or atoms or molecules.

Even if not, most measurements of quantum physics are indirect. You can measure the wavelength of light with a diffraction grating, but the direct measurement is the deflection of the light. Similar for atom spacing in crystallography using x-rays or electrons.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Does something that can only be indirectly measured count as being physical?

Taking this as a genuine question and request for information,

Yes indeed the most widely known and discussed physical property with this feature is probably entropy.

Just to be more precise, 'something' is not sufficient.
You cannot measure 'something' itself.

You measure properties of 'something' eg the length, area, volume, mass, count are all properties that can be directly measured.

Such properties are all obviously physical and called observables.

Other properties can also be physical but must be deduced from those which are observable.

Entropy is such a property.

 

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

relative objectivity

This is the first and only time you have introduced 'relative' objectivity, whatever that may be.

I call that moving the goal posts.

 

I will treat the rest of your response, after you have commented on this post.

Edited September 12 by studiot

[Luc Turpin]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

You would have an incredibly difficult time equating anything relating of mind to those physical processes under physics. Yes I would consider that off topic 

Not wanting to equate mind to the physical, but using indirect evidence and measurement as a way of exploring and discovering the true nature of mind. Again, off topic.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Depends on what constitutes direct. Does that mean naked-eye observation? Nobody has ever seen an electron. Or atoms or molecules.

Even if not, most measurements of quantum physics are indirect. You can measure the wavelength of light with a diffraction grating, but the direct measurement is the deflection of the light. Similar for atom spacing in crystallography using x-rays or electrons.

If indirect measurement is used to uncover the physical and we know that the subjective (e.g qualia, etc.) is amenable to measurement, then what is stopping us from pursuing this line of investigation? We seem to have some sort of agreement that pure objectivity appears to not exist, so pure science then might not exist as well. So, on what grounds do we negate the role of science in pearing into the subjective unknown? Certainly not measurement if we can use indirect measurement. And certainly not because of the subjective nature of "something" as most if not all elements of reality might be composed of varying degrees of both objectivity and subjectivity or even as indicated, sometimes that the classification objective / subjective is not even relevant to certain situations.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Taking this as a genuine question and request for information,

Yes indeed the most widely known and discussed physical property with this feature is probably entropy.

Just to be more precise, 'something' is not sufficient.
You cannot measure 'something' itself.

You measure properties of 'something' eg the length, area, volume, mass, count are all properties that can be directly measured.

Such properties are all obviously physical and called observables.

Other properties can also be physical but must be deduced from those which are observable.

Entropy is such a property.

 

This is the first and only time you have introduced 'relative' objectivity, whatever that may be.

I call that moving the goal posts.

 

I will treat the rest of your response, after you have commented on this post.

It was a genuine question. See just above for why I asked the question.

Please expand on "other properties can also be physical but must be deduced from those which are observable'.

"Relative" objectivity as in relative to the degree of subject perception e.g.there is less subject perception in taking a measurement then observing the behavior of cephalopods, even if we find ways of categorizing or quantifying behavior. Not moving the goal post, but refining my frame of thought.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Not your mind, a tree can communicate with other tree's but they have yet to rise up against their human oppressor's. 😉

A matter of degree, not difference in capability.

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

If indirect measurement is used to uncover the physical and we know that the subjective (e.g qualia, etc.) is amenable to measurement, then what is stopping us from pursuing this line of investigation?

It’s just a matter of figuring out how to make measurements. What can be objectively quantified.

 

40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We seem to have some sort of agreement that pure objectivity appears to not exist, so pure science then might not exist as well.

That does not follow. At best you can say some elements of science are not “pure”

A lack of objectivity in one area does not invalidate areas where the objectivity exists.

 

40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, on what grounds do we negate the role of science in pearing into the subjective unknown? Certainly not measurement if we can use indirect measurement.

You need to find the way to make objective measurements, whether it’s direct or indirect.

 

 

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I will find another venue and identify those findings that I am talking about

 

OK, I'll wait for you to find them and present before commenting further, as I suspect you have misinterpreted something about them, whatever they are. 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Not wanting to equate mind to the physical, but using indirect evidence and measurement as a way of exploring and discovering the true nature of mind. Again, off topic.

I seem to recall mentioning MRI indirect  evidence of measuring synaptic responses to stimuli. That's one method with which has a large body of studies available on the web. That would be an objective observation 

This link will assist I haven't gone through it entirely nor its linked papers 

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00084/full

Edited September 12 by Mordred

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

It was a genuine question. See 'just above' for why I asked the question.

Since it was a genuine question, what have you learned from the answers given ?

 

Since joining SF I learned the meaning of the description 'word salad'.

What you wrote 'just above' is, in my opinion, a fine example of word salad.

I couldn't understand any of it.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

If indirect measurement is used to uncover the physical and we know that the subjective (e.g qualia, etc.) is amenable to measurement, then what is stopping us from pursuing this line of investigation? We seem to have some sort of agreement that pure objectivity appears to not exist, so pure science then might not exist as well. So, on what grounds do we negate the role of science in pearing into the subjective unknown? Certainly not measurement if we can use indirect measurement. And certainly not because of the subjective nature of "something" as most if not all elements of reality might be composed of varying degrees of both objectivity and subjectivity or even as indicated, sometimes that the classification objective / subjective is not even relevant to certain situations.

I further note that, as you have done so many times, you have made no reference to the examples I offered.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

1-It’s just a matter of figuring out how to make measurements. What can be objectively quantified.

2-That does not follow. At best you can say some elements of science are not “pure”

3-A lack of objectivity in one area does not invalidate areas where the objectivity exists.

4-You need to find the way to make objective measurements, whether it’s direct or indirect.

1- Agree

2- According to the definition of objectivity that I have given and support, there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, in science and even in the "objectively quantified"; there is always a sliver left of subject perception.

3- Agree that one area with less objectivity does not invalidate areas where there is much more, but again no area of science is impervious to at least a minimum of subject perception. 

4- Got that;

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

OK, I'll wait for you to find them and present before commenting further, as I suspect you have misinterpreted something about them, whatever they are. 

Still figuring out how to proceed.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

I seem to recall mentioning MRI indirect  evidence of measuring synaptic responses to stimuli. That's one method with which has a large body of studies available on the web. That would be an objective observation 

This link will assist I haven't gone through it entirely nor its linked papers 

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00084/full

Interesting link. Went through it quickly, but promised myself that I will read it more attentively a second time.

One sentence caught my attention thought "Currently a number of theoretical prediction have been experimentally confirmed, even so they are unexpected and go against accepted views".

 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Since it was a genuine question, what have you learned from the answers given ?

 

Since joining SF I learned the meaning of the description 'word salad'.

What you wrote 'just above' is, in my opinion, a fine example of word salad.

I couldn't understand any of it.

I further note that, as you have done so many times, you have made no reference to the examples I offered.

Ran out of time for today; will post a response tomorrow morning.

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- According to the definition of objectivity that I have given and support, there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, in science and even in the "objectively quantified"; there is always a sliver left of subject perception.

3- Agree that one area with less objectivity does not invalidate areas where there is much more, but again no area of science is impervious to at least a minimum of subject perception.

You’ve never addressed studiot’s point about Moh’s scale of hardness. In what way is that subjective?

[Luc Turpin]

17 hours ago, studiot said:

1-Since it was a genuine question, what have you learned from the answers given ?

2-Since joining SF I learned the meaning of the description 'word salad'.What you wrote 'just above' is, in my opinion, a fine example of word salad.I couldn't understand any of it.

3- I further note that, as you have done so many times, you have made no reference to the examples I offered.

1- That the physical is measured indirectly by its properties and that the result of this measurement is considered objective.

2- the point that I was trying to make is what's stopping science from exploring the physical and non-physical world if indirect measurement can be used in both circumstances. Granted the former would lead to more objectivity while the latter to more subjectivity, I suspect, but the "process" of using measurment as a way of proding reality for answers would be the same.

3- I did ask to "Please expand on "other properties can also be physical but must be deduced from those which are observable'.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

You’ve never addressed studiot’s point about Moh’s scale of hardness. In what way is that subjective?

Very objective indeed! However, do diamonds differ in hardness? Yes! So, who determined the upper and lower limits of their hardness? When does a diamond stop being a diamond due to impurity? Who chose the common object examples? Could something else have been chosen?

 

Edited September 13 by Luc Turpin