Subjectivity vs. Consciousness

  • 1 Replies
  • 1529 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« on: June 02, 2013, 12:51:11 am »
Quote from: Madness
Quote from: Madness
Subjectivity vs. Consciousness

There exists a duality in the Western Intellectual tradition epitomised in the Mind-Body problem; subjective experience vs. an objective reality. This argument has been had innumerable times throughout history, represented by a limited Historical opinion.

The argument exhibits, among other things, humanityís collective will to abstain from any true search for truth. An argument that pierces the Mindís subjective experience of conscious, broaches itís shell of taboo exposing emotion no rationale can touch. Logic seems a tool used only so long as it shields and consoles. The truth, however, results in exposure to data. It is subjectivityís task to reconcile to us to circumstance.

Retrospectively, the Mindís subjective conscious behaves as an ongoing theatre. Individuals, environments and objects populate the stage, maintain subjective fictions, and are incorporated into a given Mind. Simultaneously, the conscious stage exists as a result of physical phenomenon and occupies an objectivity beneath the various trappings of subjective experience.

The conscious effort to quantify led humanity to Math; the diverse language which enabled Humans to describe the Universe in a seemingly objective fashion. From math emerged the scientific method, allowing for an objective third wall, verifiable by any who wish to learn.

Regardless of the innate squabbles of social academia, the scientific method trudges onward towards our most complete objectivity. Itís base tenet, despite human psychology, is wishing only to serve as a conduit of knowledge. The conception of subjective non-existence is extreme and unwarranted as consciousness continues.

There exists conceptual structure, built by collective consensus, in which logic and rationale should stand as foundational script. However, the structures for the revision and expansion of knowledge in the post-modern circumstance, while built inevitably, fail in their collective filtration of useless information. Even the philosophic disciplines overlook their own worth as scienceís father. Itís ability to question through novelty and rational is neutered by itís sonís implicated objectivity.

In todayís post-modern circumstance, the scientific academia are dishonestly self-assured. There statistically remains far more unexplained and mysterious about our realities than the social consensus reveals. Reason enough to endure as a honest student.

The P. Model serves to ground the Mindís subjectivity in continuously adapting principle, fluid logic strategy which allows for a more honest, developed potential. Any given experience allows for itís application: an open, accepting analysis of subjective experience, followed by a consultation of a Mindís objective knowledge, and an honest reanalysis of a Mindís subjective state. The only immediate deficit to the P. Model is our inability to rely on current consensual objectivity. Knowledge that can be integrally conceded should be built upon and the data that inspires controversy should ignite co-operative challenge to solve. The scientific academia itself would benefit from an inspired use of the P. Model, if only it allowed for the return to subjectivity and an allowance for Mind to understand itís objectivity. Experiential summation of subjective scenario vs. objective circumstance: an equation for occupying our ďtruestĒ objective circumstance.

It follows that a Mindís subjective experience is either based on subjectivity within objectivity or the Mindís experience, chiefly without logic, is slave to the unchecked fate of history, custom, and desire. Even worse in our wholly subjective experience, we are currently at a disadvantage due to our incomplete, unrealized sensory dashboard. This too contributes to our psychological slavery through an impressive system of complex stimuli.

The controversial truisms of the Mindís self, comprised of subjectivity, occupy a truthful realm of more or less. An individual can either present themselves with honesty or lies which contributes to their personal slide up or down their truthful subjective occupation of objective circumstance. In occupying our truest description of reality and in that journey we might raise the quality of life exponentially.

Questions of Ego stand near the heart of subjective experience vs. an objective reality apart from our futile descriptions. A Mind occupies objective reality, admitted by our mutual consensus, as an evolution and culmination of objective, biological processes. A Mindís subjective experience though appears to be a culmination of stimuli, a tool of organization. A Mindís subjective reconciliation with itís objective reality might, as well, be itís deconstruction. Can a sense of self, an Ego occupy an objectivity or would all the layers of the onion be pealed away, revealing a terribly deluded animal? The likelihood in such a strange reality is likely a tangle of all our conceptions and more. Subjective experience affirms itís revised and expanded knowledge, however, following the P. Modelís continued use.

The construct of subjective experience is loosely based on objective reality; the innate steps of psyche drive towards itís individual definition within objective reality, not a subjective one. The initial slate of conscious emerges through evolution, immediately represented through sensory stimuli. Despite our ulterior contextual summations, the objective variables of our being have evolved to allow subjective experience.

There remains exponential honest mystery in this Kosmos without debate of our few fundamental truths. In the realms of evolution and objectivity, subjective experience serves a real purpose. Likewise, with further revisions to societal and cultural conceptual structures and an honest revision of our knowledge base, we might describe the soul, consciousness, self, and our existing and further sensory appendages with math.

Logically, the Mindís self has come into being because of subjective experience. Simultaneously, your gross being which allows for subjective experience has come into existence by an objective happening. Likely, truisms the world over occupying the Histories remain skewed by our individual descriptions. Perhaps, the Great-Chain-of-Being is just a definition for humanityís immediate circumstance instead of a universal context.

Individually, a Mindís conscious remains a blank slate absolute. In the logical summation of your subjective reconciliation to objective reality, a balance emerges between the conscious slate and the developed persona. This might allow for consciousness to grow in an objective understanding way of open, honest, acceptance alongside a ďI think therefore I amĒ subjectivity.

The trace of self occupies an increasingly muddled territory. Despite most controversy what ďexistsĒ, endures. The challenge to occupy objective reality itself, yields to the journey of truth, from a  foundation of the selfís place as an existing construction of sensory phenomenon within objectivity.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2013, 12:51:18 am »
Quote from: Callan S.
I once heard a statistician impressing the importance of once taking an approach, of repeating it time and time again. Otherwise you have no sample to work from.

Seems reasonable - but what if you take that process and look at it from the inside, looking out? As in when it's encoded into a creatures mind? What might it look like looking out from the inside of the statisticians analysis?

Perhaps sheer bloody minded belief in the approach? No, wait, it wouldn't be bloody minded from the perspective - it'd be absolute truth.

What if the abstaining of the search for truth is the artifact of something elses search for truth? After all, the scientists microscope is narrow minded, stubbornly focused and disinclined to look around, isn't it?