Paradise (Where is it now?)

by dhw, Thursday, January 07, 2010, 19:46 (5433 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: All mental phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of chemistry and physics.-In his post under 'Just for Matt' on Wed 6 January at 00.19, Matt drew our attention to a fascinating article about a Professor Henry Markram, who has attracted vast sums of money to finance his project to build an artificial mind. The article contains the following quote:-"Of course consciousness is one of the deepest scientific mysteries. How do millions of tiny electrical impulses in our heads give rise to the feeling of self, of pain, of love? No one knows."-Apparently he's wrong. George knows.-I pointed out that our emotions were both subjective and real. In response George writes: "Such emotions may be described as personal but they are not subjective, they are real." 
Here are two dictionary definitions of subjective: 1) based on personal opinions or feelings rather than on facts; 2) existing only in the mind and not independently of it. 
I'm relieved to hear you agree that such emotions are real, and I would suggest to you that they are both personal AND subjective. But perhaps you can find a better definition of subjectivity than the above. -Gratifyingly, you go on: "Evidence for their existence is available, from brain-scans and observations of behaviour for example, as well as personal testimony." Brain-scans indicate chemical activities within the brain, but they don't tell us anything about actual feelings. However, what pleases me here is your willingness to accept observations of behaviour and personal testimony as evidence. Then perhaps you might also consider observations of behaviour and personal testimony as evidence of the POSSIBILITY (I do not ask for more) that certain so-called "paranormal" experiences may not be explicable in terms of any known reality. You automatically dismiss all such claims, with the argument: "I know of no cases where the supposed information cannot be explained to have arisen by other means." I wonder how many cases you have investigated, bearing in mind the thousands that have been reported (and there are even three of us on this site who are unable to find rational explanations for certain experiences). -Your refusal to contemplate this possibility ties in neatly with your observation that: "Subjectivity lies in the interpretation of experiences in terms that will suit one's wishes or one's expectations." I myself can do no more than speculate, and I am certainly not prepared to offer a particular interpretation of these psychic experiences, but in my subjective judgement your own subjective interpretation, which of course is suited to your materialist expectations, has a 50% chance of being correct.