|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
subjective vs. objective 1
#23695141 - 09/30/16 07:36 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Subjective impressions are every bit as valid in sensing the nature of reality as objective measurements are. For example, depending on one's spiritual attainments, one can know just as much about the quantum nature of reality as a physicist does without ever having opened a physics textbook. Many Buddhist scholars have done just this over the centuries. The sensation of redness is every bit as legitimate as asserting the frequency of red light. One frame of reference is in no way superior to the other. These are two sides of the same coin that comes out of nature's purse. In our materialist, modern world, with science as the new authority, it seems we have denigrated the validity of subjective experience in favor of a more objective one, which we now somehow regard as truer. Both views of the world are equally valid, and totally complementary.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: For example, depending on one's spiritual attainments, one can know just as much about the quantum nature of reality as a physicist does without ever having opened a physics textbook.
I disagree 1000%.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Have you ever read Tibetan Buddhist philosophy extensively? There is a reason so many physicists are way into Eastern philosophy.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
No I haven't read that particular book, but I have a hard time believing it can teach the reader just as much about quantum theory as a physicist can.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: The sensation of redness is every bit as legitimate as asserting the frequency of red light.
Sounds like the placebo effect. I mean what the hell does this even mean?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/
Quote:
The famous Danish physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962) (pictured above), was a follower of the Vedas. He said, “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.” Both Bohr and Schrödinger, the founders of quantum physics, were avid readers of the Vedic texts and observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what they had read in the Vedas.
...
Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger regularly read Vedic texts. Heisenberg stated, “Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” Vedanta is the conclusion of Vedic thought.
...
While he was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore. He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China.
Consequently, Bohr adopted the Yin-Yang symbol as part of his family coat-of-arms when he was knighted in 1947.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
I think it's great that abstract scientific thought can form when immersed in eastern religious mysticism. this to me supports the need to dream better dreams. science always follows dreams. elon musk dream better
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
|
|
Though I think your assertion is incorrect, but not for the same reasons as have been stated by others. Your dichotomy between 'subjective' and 'objective' is a false one:
Colors (as you referenced viewing the color red) come to us in the form of visual sensations; as do shapes, motion etc. Sweetness, sourness and bitterness come to us in the form of taste sensations etc.
These are subjective phenomena, of the kind you referenced in your OP. Yet, when we move on to science's 'objective' methods of verification; e.g. mathematics, particle accelerators, conceptual physical models etc; These are merely subjective phenomena arising in our consciousness in the form of thoughts, ideas, and other visual phenomena.
Thoughts, feelings, moods, sensations, sounds etc. are all that we ever have to work with. Whether we are observing light directly, or we are staring at a machine that is 'measuring' light, and reading it's calculations, we are dealing with the contents of the mind. Everything is 'subjective', so to speak, or, you could say that everything is 'objective', these words really don't have much meaning.
Having said all of the above, I don't think that studying eastern wisdom alone can necessarily get you an iota closer to understanding quantum physics. Do you think that putting a Tibetan Lama in a physics laboratory is as likely to yield accurate predictions as putting a tenured theoretical physics in a laboratory? I think the answer is obviously no.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: secondorder]
#23696288 - 10/01/16 04:37 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I have a feeling this is needed.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: sudly] 1
#23696325 - 10/01/16 05:23 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Can you imagine a laboratory supply beginning to offer a Rent-A-Monk service to go with data collection and analysis tools?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
The main reason that science is the new authority, is largely because the authorities such as the Navy and corporations such as Monsanto (how bout that Bayer deal, wow, Nazi Germany meets Agent Orange) are granting the money for research. Universities are virtually owned now by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, etc. and woe to those researchers who get a conscience. Check out atrazinelovers and his blackballing for speaking the truth.
So, when research is funded by the Rockefellers and their minions, when war and weapons is such a big money maker, when GMO doesn't have to even be labeled and Monsanto can fund it's development and new workers right there in colleges, where does that leave us? Surely objectively if research was truly done by independent researchers, then subjectively we would be experiencing a much better world. Instead, we are being systematically poisoned by the same system we pay for to learn from to work for our paycheck and pension. Then we die.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: secondorder]
#23696593 - 10/01/16 09:10 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said: Though I think your assertion is incorrect, but not for the same reasons as have been stated by others. Your dichotomy between 'subjective' and 'objective' is a false one:
Colors (as you referenced viewing the color red) come to us in the form of visual sensations; as do shapes, motion etc. Sweetness, sourness and bitterness come to us in the form of taste sensations etc.
These are subjective phenomena, of the kind you referenced in your OP. Yet, when we move on to science's 'objective' methods of verification; e.g. mathematics, particle accelerators, conceptual physical models etc; These are merely subjective phenomena arising in our consciousness in the form of thoughts, ideas, and other visual phenomena.
Thoughts, feelings, moods, sensations, sounds etc. are all that we ever have to work with. Whether we are observing light directly, or we are staring at a machine that is 'measuring' light, and reading it's calculations, we are dealing with the contents of the mind. Everything is 'subjective', so to speak, or, you could say that everything is 'objective', these words really don't have much meaning.
Having said all of the above, I don't think that studying eastern wisdom alone can necessarily get you an iota closer to understanding quantum physics. Do you think that putting a Tibetan Lama in a physics laboratory is as likely to yield accurate predictions as putting a tenured theoretical physics in a laboratory? I think the answer is obviously no.
Good points, I appreciate the dialogue. I admit I didn't give as much thought to my use of 'subjective' and 'objective' as you did; I was merely using them as conventions to compare two different approaches. But you are of course quite right; everything I have described exists as a set of mental contents in the human mind.
If you look at the post above regarding the physicists, it highlights what I meant. Of course, quantum mechanics is much more detailed and rigorous than the sort of thing you'd find in the Vedas and in the East in general, but such knowledge was good enough to help the founders of quantum theory build foundations on which to formalize theory. That was what I was referring to.
As you suggest, we rarely cross from subjective to objective. But I personally believe that objective reality can be touched on, and this is in part the motivation for suggesting the dichotomy. However, I appreciate your insights.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Subjective impressions are every bit as valid in sensing the nature of reality as objective measurements are. For example, depending on one's spiritual attainments, one can know just as much about the quantum nature of reality as a physicist does without ever having opened a physics textbook. Many Buddhist scholars have done just this over the centuries. The sensation of redness is every bit as legitimate as asserting the frequency of red light. One frame of reference is in no way superior to the other. These are two sides of the same coin that comes out of nature's purse. In our materialist, modern world, with science as the new authority, it seems we have denigrated the validity of subjective experience in favor of a more objective one, which we now somehow regard as truer. Both views of the world are equally valid, and totally complementary.
you present simplistic examples.As you already know there are many hate groups and members of political parties whose subjective opinions on most things you wouldn't trust any further than you can throw a cotton ball.
What goes on in the minds of advanced meditators is an interesting question. Which actually interests scientists. Of course the main purpose of meditation is not to learn more about the physical world, and although their accomplishments seem of great human value, they have no track record of making useful inventions, or scientific discoveries or theories or mathematical equations.
Indeed much Quantum theory, is indeed still theoretical -- Roger Penrose has a new book out on exactly this. (Buddha did not provide the answers to these questions). R Prnrose was on NPR, it is probably available as a podcast online.
There are anomlies of course , like the Tibetan yoga of the psychic heat, but again nothing 'tangible' or quantifible for the 'world at large'.
Whether meditation could be more valuable to the world than science, is a separate question. It is tempting to say that if it worked reliably and quickly then the answer would be yes. Then again Tim Leary thought something similar ...
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog] 1
#23697870 - 10/01/16 05:49 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Again, and I seem to be getting a lot of misunderstanding on this. From above:
"The famous Danish physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962) was a follower of the Vedas. He said, “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.” Both Bohr and Schrödinger, the founders of quantum physics, were avid readers of the Vedic texts and observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what they had read in the Vedas."
The line in the original post comes from the congruence of the meditative/psychedelic state and quantum theory. Many have had that experience.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
|
|
So like anything refering to me is taken as subjective because its about me...but what that can come out of my mouth therefore be not subjective...
Hmmm..I know objective equates with the truth of the matter...which is a slogan in and out of the knot of matrimony..or otherwise Hell..and a Luvely good Good Bye.,. surely this cancer cant continue...in the anal halls of nowhere, in and out of the knot in this particular Cancer..
so like what I write is subjective...
But what I base my writing on or teaching and learning at the same time..is objective..or at last I have it in my objective to do something about..the objective path is one of truth..so the subjective must be true as well..hmm, interesting gland therepy..indeed it is the subject of a cover given Mexican..with 3 Steel oats to boot..and then shake a stick at the wordly given dockmah..
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
yes they both have ideas of impermanence & interdependence, as explaining reality better than the apparent solidity, we see, in common.
But 'realizing' impermanence & interdependence experientialy, NOT intellectually is the actual goal of meditation, and it is not a common experience, but comes after long serious practice, and only to some.
Another major difference is that neither system gets the benefits of the other.
The Dali Lama 'and co.' do not do advanced math etc.
and the physicists don't realize Anatta, or experience the jhanas, etc.
Itwould seem only intellectually and metaphorically do they seem to synchronize. A lot of new agers and book authors have capitalized on this and been criticized by actual scientists for doing so.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
To me there is no objective morality. I believe morality is a subjective decision and it is fluid.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
#23697984 - 10/01/16 06:29 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: yes they both have ideas of impermanence & interdependence, as explaining reality better than the apparent solidity, we see, in common.
But 'realizing' impermanence & interdependence experientialy, NOT intellectually is the actual goal of meditation, and it is not a common experience, but comes after long serious practice, and only to some.
Another major difference is that neither system gets the benefits of the other.
The Dali Lama 'and co.' do not do advanced math etc.
and the physicists don't realize Anatta, or experience the jhanas, etc.
Itwould seem only intellectually and metaphorically do they seem to synchronize. A lot of new agers and book authors have capitalized on this and been criticized by actual scientists for doing so.
I like your post, but I disagree that they synchronize "only intellectually and metaphorically." In my experience, there can be a true union. I don't know how many of those authors were genuine, perhaps a few.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
pineninja
Dream Weaver



Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South
|
|
I think some of the difficulty that seems to arise in these debates is born of the fundamental differences in mind states that one needs to process both subjective and objective moments. I think DQ is trying the discuss and pose that at deeper levels of fluid thought links can be made between the inexplicable occurrences of QP and those of philosophers who have tried to understand the way we experience, and how they interplay. Sure Banal rationality will take you down the path of hard science but at certain point even Qauntum physicists get to a point of thinking in the murky world of subjective theory this is as important as the "objective" outcomes.
-------------------- Just a fool on the hill.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: ....
.... In my experience, there can be a true union. ...
how so?
the only mystic I know who did math was Srinivasa Ramanujan
and he was not a buddhist meditator I believe & think it was a Hindu God to whom he ascribed his insights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
Deeply religious,[5] Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity: '"An equation for me has no meaning," he once said, "unless it expresses a thought of God."'[6]
|
|