I would like to respond to the question "How do you know that you are not in the Matrix?", that was raised to Michal Shermer during the Q&A at a lecture that I attended. My response is simply that "I do not know". Further from that it is worth pointing out that it is not something that I should need to know in order to live my life with the assumption that I do not live in the matrix, or rather that I exist in an objective reality along with the questioner and everything else that exists in this universe. Something that I do know is that I do not have a red pill and I would be willing to wager that neither does the questioner.
With out the red pill I am forced to assume that the world I live in is reality and my sensory perception of it is a strong enough approximation of reality as to allow me consistent navigation of life. As for anyone who happens to have a "the red pill" I would congratulate them on their very personal and non-demonstrable quest for knowledge and then ask how they are to know, upon taking the pill, weather or not they have found an objective reality or simply a regress to a second simulation.
Ultimately the question holds no weight because we can not escape our reality even if it is the creation of an evil demon or a computer simulation. Our experience of reality is objective with-in the reference frame of human experience until proven otherwise.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
From Beer to a Spectral Objectivity
In my examination of objectivity I would like to first focus on the subject of taste. Taste is an evolutionary selected mechanism that enables us to detect possible harms and notable pleasures at the front end of the energy and nutrient intake process. The Gustatory process involves converting the molecular patterns of food(or what ever else you might find stuffed in your face) into action potentials that can be interpreted by our brains via the sensory receptors on the tung and olfactory.
To better get a grasp on the idea of Spectral Objectivity I would like to examine the seemingly subjective experience of drinking Beer. When one enjoys the complex pleasures of an IPA, one might notice that those pleasures are not shared by all. It can be recognized that many people truly enjoy the bitter citrus aromatics of a well crafted IPA while many others are quite put off by the shear intensity of the flavors. This subjectivity of interpretation is a form of Relativism. I would like to ask, is the experience of something such as beer, truly relative? It follows from the physical foundation of the gustatory process that it is not. When to people of equal standing drink from the same glass and have two completely different experiences, I submit that it is not the experience that is different but the neurological interpretation that is different. The underlying truth of this instance, that being the molecular structure of the beer, is not changed by the interpretation of the truth. Interpretation can be altered by many compounding factors, from the number and density of sensory receptors on one persons tong, to the previous experience with intense beers and thus less defined neural networks with which to interpret the experience. One person could be overpowered by the bittering agents of the hops while the other might be able to pick out the various citrus and caramel notes that bring out the brilliance of the craft. The point here being that truth is independent of interpretation and that experience lies on a spectrum between extremes.
It would be useful to point out that the spectrum of interpretation is often much narrower than the relativist would allow, that is to say that your "truth" and my "truth" are not that far apart. There is a bell shaped curve for the way in which people experience everything from the color red to the taste of Phenylthiocarbamide. This is where relativism hides in ambiguity claiming that the bell shaped curve of experience looks more of a flat line. Spectral Objectivity operates with the understanding that while personal experience lies on a spectrum, that spectrum for any given experience will lie under a curve where the majority of people will relate the experience in a very similar manner. Further more any experience will follow from the objectively defined physical construct of the experience and the personal expression of the experience will follow from with-in the range of possible neural interpretations of the experience. Essentially, Experience is the neurological interpretation of sensory receptors physically interacting with reality. Reality is objective and independent of knowledge. There is a great number of near-random variables both in the interaction and interpretation phase of this process leading to a Spectrum of expressions of personal experience with reality. The majority of People will express their experience of the IPA in a similar fashion and as the expression of the experience diverges the number of people who express it will drop rapidly.
To better get a grasp on the idea of Spectral Objectivity I would like to examine the seemingly subjective experience of drinking Beer. When one enjoys the complex pleasures of an IPA, one might notice that those pleasures are not shared by all. It can be recognized that many people truly enjoy the bitter citrus aromatics of a well crafted IPA while many others are quite put off by the shear intensity of the flavors. This subjectivity of interpretation is a form of Relativism. I would like to ask, is the experience of something such as beer, truly relative? It follows from the physical foundation of the gustatory process that it is not. When to people of equal standing drink from the same glass and have two completely different experiences, I submit that it is not the experience that is different but the neurological interpretation that is different. The underlying truth of this instance, that being the molecular structure of the beer, is not changed by the interpretation of the truth. Interpretation can be altered by many compounding factors, from the number and density of sensory receptors on one persons tong, to the previous experience with intense beers and thus less defined neural networks with which to interpret the experience. One person could be overpowered by the bittering agents of the hops while the other might be able to pick out the various citrus and caramel notes that bring out the brilliance of the craft. The point here being that truth is independent of interpretation and that experience lies on a spectrum between extremes.
It would be useful to point out that the spectrum of interpretation is often much narrower than the relativist would allow, that is to say that your "truth" and my "truth" are not that far apart. There is a bell shaped curve for the way in which people experience everything from the color red to the taste of Phenylthiocarbamide. This is where relativism hides in ambiguity claiming that the bell shaped curve of experience looks more of a flat line. Spectral Objectivity operates with the understanding that while personal experience lies on a spectrum, that spectrum for any given experience will lie under a curve where the majority of people will relate the experience in a very similar manner. Further more any experience will follow from the objectively defined physical construct of the experience and the personal expression of the experience will follow from with-in the range of possible neural interpretations of the experience. Essentially, Experience is the neurological interpretation of sensory receptors physically interacting with reality. Reality is objective and independent of knowledge. There is a great number of near-random variables both in the interaction and interpretation phase of this process leading to a Spectrum of expressions of personal experience with reality. The majority of People will express their experience of the IPA in a similar fashion and as the expression of the experience diverges the number of people who express it will drop rapidly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
