Do you agree that there are intrinsically Subjective aspects of nature?

Question

Sensations (sensation of sound, of color, of smell, of pain etc etc) are intrinsically subjective parts of nature. Science, by its very construction, can only address the objective parts of nature. Thus we have, I would claim, a part of nature beyond science..
[For a more detailed explanation of how sensations are subjective see some of my earlier Answers]

p.s If you find this question interesting (whether you agree with me or disagree) and would like to pursue it, I encourage you to join my new Yahoo group on "science and spirit".

jonmcn: Lets try and avoid emotional argumentative words like "conceit", ok?

In my view the "neural correlates" of subjective sensations are not the same thing as those sensory experiences themselves ( In particular, one is objective and the other is subjective). Even if we have a complete understanding of the neural correlates, it's not at all obvious we will be any closer to some real understanding of the subjective sensations themselves. I am not saying it is impossible (although thats my gut feeling) I'm just saying its not at all obvious. By the way, that's not just my view, but is a view shared by many prominent respected scientists.

If you'd like to engage in serious discussion, I welcome that. But please keep your insults to yourself.

Why is it that when I try to raise the possibility of something beyond science, I get the same kind of abuse and refusal to even listen that early scientists like Galileo (who proposed something beyond the Church) encountered from the Church?

pierre: whoa..I call jonmcn for giving me one insult...and now here you come with a whole basketful of 'em...

take a deep breath, relax and listen to me: I am not claiming to prove anything..I'm trying to engage in a calm intelligent exchange..you are welcome to participate (just control your emotions and your insults,please)

My reasoning can be found in my Answer to a Question about "a tree falling in the forest" (see my profile)
I'd be glad to have you read it and then provide some serious feedback (and not a stream of insults..)

irv: Yes, that is precisely my point. I have yet to hear a clear scientific argument that demonstrates the flaw in your "errant thought".

jonmcn: Thanks for the lecture on the meaning of the word "conceit".
Apart from that, I note that you make no attempt to explain how I misunderstood you. Nor do you make any attempt to address the substantive comments in my reply to you.

Answer 1

Science deals with the objective.
We both see the color red.
Science tells us it is light of a measurable intensity,
with a certain average wavelength.
This we can measure and will agree upon.
With the subjective, (how that color makes us feel),
we may differ.
An errant thought:
Interestingly enough, while we both describe the color we experience as 'red`, there is no real way to determine if we both experience the same sensation.

Answer 2

You're making a specious and leaky argument for arguing there IS something supernatural. Why don't you just prove something directly?

The way I see it, scientists using science alone have held the monopoly on discovering every invisible thing for the last several hundred years: X-rays, planets past Saturn, and so on. These things were completely undetected, but scientists built instruments beyond their natural bodies but explainable step-by-step by science, to discover and characterize these things and make them known.

On the other hand, religious people are talking-clubs who rehash the same old short-circuited reasonings, whose minds are ugly and resemble witch-doctors coated with mud and leaves, and who NEVER EVER come up with something new or useful to benefit us.

Science doesn't know everything, but it doesn't have to because religion doesn't even know the FIRST thing. If science has discovered all the invisible realms that are known, it is silly to say science is somehow "limited" while we need to switch to religion to get some new insight. Just what is your PROOF of that, and what examples can you give of new, useful insights that aren't the same old theorizings and wishful thinkings? Hmmm? Answer me that.

Answer 3

You have better be prepared to revise your conceit. Neuroscience has reduced these qualia from a mystery to a problem. Soon they will be another continuous variable of mental expression. The neurological correlates ( at least ) of much of your list have already been found. Perhaps some of the qualia will be beyond elucidation, but that will be because; " Not only is the universe queerer than we imagine, but it may be queerer than we CAN imagine " J. B. S. Haldane.

There was no insult implied or intended. How could I possible have an objective discussion with some one ill educated in usage, or as ultra sensitive, as you seem to be. I suggest you refer to a dictionary on the usage of the word " conceit ". Also, it appears you did not fully grasp my reply to your question. We will not be ever discussing anything again.

Answer 4

yes i do very much agree.....one could even go further and say that even the objective things are subjective as the research itself is dependent on scientists who, being creatures of flesh and blood, must reply on those subjective sensations to form their individual perceptions and since no two of us can have the exact same perceptions there isn't anything real or imagined that can be proved as a concrete objective form.