Is subjectivity just a matter of context?

[Coffee Jesus]

If you think a magnetic field counts as a "disembodied presence", then I guess you could say that.

I didn't say anything about a magnetic field counting as a disembodied presence.

"Infrasound and magnetic fields cause some brains to produce the feeling of disembodied presences."

Eating magic mushrooms causes brains to produce hallucinations but the mushrooms themselves aren't hallucinations.

I would use the wording "feel as if there is a disembodied presence". The phrase "feeling a disembodied presence" seems to suggest that they really are detecting a disembodied presence.

[Confused Ape]

I would use the wording "feel as if there is a disembodied presence". The phrase "feeling a disembodied presence" seems to suggest that they really are detecting a disembodied presence.

I see what you mean. You wouldn't believe the number of times I read that post through before hitting the Reply button.

[bennyboy]

Here's my question: should the ability of drugs and lab procedures be taken as evidence that "religious" or "spiritual" experiences are just brain tricks? Or should it also be taken as evidence that the human mind is deeply fallible, and not in general to be trusted as an interface to obective facts (like the existence of things)?

[Confused Ape]

Here's my question: should the ability of drugs and lab procedures be taken as evidence that "religious" or "spiritual" experiences are just brain tricks? Or should it also be taken as evidence that the human mind is deeply fallible, and not in general to be trusted as an interface to obective facts (like the existence of things)?

I'd say it's the human brain which is fallible because consciousness is produced by the brain. The human brain, however, is all that humans have got when it comes to experiencing the world and interpreting information related to what objective facts might be. Science is supposed to be objective but scientists can end up divided into two camps about something and they then spend a lot of time yelling and throwing rocks at each other to borrow a phrase Minimalist used in another topic.

Parapsychology is very controversial. On one side are scientists who insist that paranormal phenomena are real and on the other side are scientists who insist that they aren't. The 'No they aren't" side accuses 'believers' of falsifying data or misinterpreting it due to wishful thinking. The 'Yes they are' side accuses the enemy of being prejudiced and moving goalposts - the kind of data which would be accepted as proof of other things is rejected when it comes to the paranormal.

Scientists who insist that quantum physics proves the existence of a deity are regarded as being barking mad. When it comes to a different kind of creator, though, it's seems to be another story.

Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?

First, Bostrom says, assume that we will reach a point technologically in which we can create a simulated version of a universe -- perhaps even a copy of our own. This could be the singularity, when humans use our understanding of technology and biology to become transhuman. Bostrom argues that if we can create a universe simulation, we almost certainly will do so. Further, we would probably create as many simulations as we could in order to learn more about our own universe, among other reasons.

Next, we assume that the virtual inhabitants of the simulated universe possess characteristics similar to our own, including consciousness, but are unaware that they're in a simulation. Bostrom states that if this is technologically possible, then it's virtually impossible that we aren't living in a computer simulation already.

That's because we can't assume that some other version of intelligent beings -- human or otherwise -- hasn't already hit that technological landmark and created a simulation in which we are now living. Everything we can observe and test would exist within the realm of the simulation, giving us no clue that our reality is in fact just a bunch of ones and zeroes.

Even more mind boggling is the possibility that our universe could be a simulation within another simulation and that we, in turn, could create our own simulations. It becomes a dizzying series of universe nesting dolls, each one contained within another universe.

An interesting idea.

Simulation Hypothesis - Testing the hypothesis

A method to test the hypothesis was proposed in 2012 in a joint paper by physicists Silas R. Beane from the University of Bonn (now at the University of Washington, Seattle), and Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage from the University of Washington, Seattle.[26] Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe would be performed by dividing the continuum space-time into a discrete set of points. In analogy with the mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists run today to build up nuclei from the underlying theory of strong interactions (known as Quantum Chromodynamics), several observational consequences of a grid-like space-time have been studied in their work. Among proposed signatures is an anisotropy in the distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, that, if observed, would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis according to these physicists (but, of course, would not prove that the universe is a simulation). A multitude of physical observables must be explored before any such scenario could be accepted or rejected as a theory of nature.[27]

As yet I have found no evidence that 'orthodox' scientists are throwing rocks at these physicists and yelling, "This is a barking mad idea and it would be a waste of time, money and resources looking into it." I find this rather interesting. The idea of any kind of deity makes most Western scientists throw up their hands in horror. If, on the other hand, it can be proved that our universe was created by alien computer programmers, it seems that these scientists would be happy to accept it.

I'm going to finish this post with - Benjamin Libet

Benjamin Libet's experiments and measurements of the time before a subject is aware of self-initiated actions have had a enormous, mostly negative, impact on the case for human free will, despite Libet's view that his work does nothing to deny human freedom.

This has resulted in two camps - 'Free will doesn't exist' and 'Yes, it still exists'.

Is it possible, then, that a lot of what we regard as objective reality is really group opinion?

[Ben Davis]

Is subjectivity just a matter of context?

Depends.