Blind spot of science is the neglect of lived experience (philosophy of science)

C C Offline

EXCERPT: The problem of time is one of the greatest puzzles of modern physics. The first bit of the conundrum is cosmological. ... This problem hits a hard wall when we deal with the origin of the Universe itself, because we have no view from the outside. We can’t step outside the box in order to look within, because the box is all there is. A First Cause is not only unknowable, but also scientifically unintelligible.

The second part of the challenge is philosophical. Scientists have taken physical time to be the only real time – whereas experiential time, the subjective sense of time’s passing, is considered a cognitive fabrication of secondary importance. The young Albert Einstein made this position clear in his debate with philosopher Henri Bergson in the 1920s, when he claimed that the physicist’s time is the only time. With age, Einstein became more circumspect. Up to the time of his death, he remained deeply troubled about how to find a place for the human experience of time in the scientific worldview.

[...] Many of us like to think that science can give us a complete, objective description of cosmic history, distinct from us and our perception of it. But this image of science is deeply flawed. In our urge for knowledge and control, we’ve created a vision of science as a series of discoveries about how reality is in itself, a God’s-eye view of nature. Such an approach not only distorts the truth, but creates a false sense of distance between ourselves and the world. That divide arises from what we call the Blind Spot, which science itself cannot see. In the Blind Spot sits experience: the sheer presence and immediacy of lived perception.

Behind the Blind Spot sits the belief that physical reality has absolute primacy in human knowledge, a view that can be called scientific materialism. In philosophical terms, it combines scientific objectivism (science tells us about the real, mind-independent world) and physicalism (science tells us that physical reality is all there is). Elementary particles, moments in time, genes, the brain – all these things are assumed to be fundamentally real. By contrast, experience, awareness and consciousness are taken to be secondary. The scientific task becomes about figuring out how to reduce them to something physical, such as the behaviour of neural networks, the architecture of computational systems, or some measure of information.

This framework faces two intractable problems. The first concerns scientific objectivism. We never encounter physical reality outside of our observations of it. Elementary particles, time, genes and the brain are manifest to us only through our measurements, models and manipulations. Their presence is always based on scientific investigations, which occur only in the field of our experience.

This doesn’t mean that scientific knowledge is arbitrary, or a mere projection of our own minds. On the contrary, some models and methods of investigation work much better than others, and we can test this. But these tests never give us nature as it is in itself, outside our ways of seeing and acting on things. Experience is just as fundamental to scientific knowledge as the physical reality it reveals.

The second problem concerns physicalism. According to the most reductive version of physicalism, science tells us that everything, including life, the mind and consciousness, can be reduced to the behaviour of the smallest material constituents. You’re nothing but your neurons, and your neurons are nothing but little bits of matter. Here, life and the mind are gone, and only lifeless matter exists.

To put it bluntly, the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty. If ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it, then the assertion that only physical phenomena exist is false. Why? Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness is something unnatural or supernatural. The point is that physical science doesn’t include an account of experience; but we know that experience exists, so the claim that the only things that exist are what physical science tells us is false.

On the other hand, if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness. This problem is known as Hempel’s dilemma, named after the illustrious philosopher of science Carl Gustav Hempel (1905-97). Faced with this quandary, some philosophers argue that we should define ‘physical’ such that it rules out radical emergentism (that life and the mind are emergent from but irreducible to physical reality) and panpsychism (that mind is fundamental and exists everywhere, including at the microphysical level). This move would give physicalism a definite content, but at the cost of trying to legislate in advance what ‘physical’ can mean, instead of leaving its meaning to be determined by physics.

We reject this move. Whatever ‘physical’ means should be determined by physics and not armchair reflection. After all, the meaning of the term ‘physical’ has changed dramatically since the 17th century. Matter was once thought to be inert, impenetrable, rigid, and subject only to deterministic and local interactions. Today, we know that this is wrong in virtually all respects [...] We should expect further dramatic changes in our concept of physical reality in the future. For these reasons, we can’t simply legislate what the term ‘physical’ can mean as a way to get out of Hempel’s dilemma.

Objectivism and physicalism are philosophical ideas, not scientific ones – even if some scientists espouse them. They don’t logically follow from what science tells us about the physical world, or from the scientific method itself. By forgetting that these perspectives are a philosophical bias, not a mere data-point, scientific materialists ignore the ways that immediate experience and the world can never be separated.

[...] Nowhere is the materialistic bias in science more apparent than quantum physics, the science of atoms and subatomic particles. [...] The discoveries of the past 100 years would seem to be a vindication for all those who have argued for an atomist, and reductionist, conception of nature. But what the Greeks, Isaac Newton and 19th-century scientists meant by the thing called an ‘atom’, and what we mean today, are very different. In fact, it’s the very notion of a ‘thing’ that quantum mechanics calls into question.

[...] Today, interpretations of quantum mechanics disagree about what matter is, and what our role is with respect to it. These differences concern the so-called ‘measurement problem’: how the wave function of the electron reduces from a superposition of several states to a single state upon observation. For several schools of thought, quantum physics doesn’t give us access to the way the world fundamentally is in itself. Rather, it only lets us grasp how matter behaves in relation to our interactions with it.

According to the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr, for example, the wave function has no reality outside of the interaction between the electron and the measurement device. Other approaches, such as the ‘many worlds’ and ‘hidden variables’ interpretations, seek to preserve an observer-independent status for the wave function. But this comes at the cost of adding features such as unobservable parallel universes. A relatively new interpretation known as Quantum-Bayesianism (QBism) – which combines quantum information theory and Bayesian probability theory – takes a different tack; it interprets the irreducible probabilities of a quantum state not as an element of reality, but as the degrees of belief an agent has about the outcome of a measurement. In other words, making a measurement is like making a bet on the world’s behaviour, and once the measurement is made, updating one’s knowledge. Advocates of this interpretation sometimes describe it as ‘participatory realism’, because human agency is woven into the process of doing physics as a means of gaining knowledge about the world. From this viewpoint, the equations of quantum physics don’t refer just to the observed atom but also to the observer and the atom taken as a whole in a kind of ‘observer-participancy’.

Participatory realism is controversial. But it’s precisely this plurality of interpretations, with a variety of philosophical implications, that undermines the sober certainty of the materialist and reductionist position on nature. In short, there’s still no simple way to remove our experience as scientists from the characterisation of the physical world.

This brings us back to the Blind Spot. When we look at the objects of scientific knowledge, we don’t tend to see the experiences that underpin them. We do not see how experience makes their presence to us possible. Because we lose sight of the necessity of experience, we erect a false idol of science as something that bestows absolute knowledge of reality, independent of how it shows up and how we interact with it.

[...] Scientific materialists will argue that the scientific method enables us to get outside of experience and grasp the world as it is in itself. As will be clear by now, we disagree; indeed, we believe that this way of thinking misrepresents the very method and practice of science.

In general terms, here’s how the scientific method works. First, we set aside aspects of human experience on which we can’t always agree, such as how things look or taste or feel. Second, using mathematics and logic, we construct abstract, formal models that we treat as stable objects of public consensus. Third, we intervene in the course of events by isolating and controlling things that we can perceive and manipulate. Fourth, we use these abstract models and concrete interventions to calculate future events. Fifth, we check these predicted events against our perceptions. An essential ingredient of this whole process is technology: machines – our equipment – that standardise these procedures, amplify our powers of perception, and allow us to control phenomena to our own ends.

The Blind Spot arises when we start to believe that this method gives us access to unvarnished reality. But experience is present at every step. Scientific models must be pulled out from observations, often mediated by our complex scientific equipment. They are idealisations, not actual things in the world. Galileo’s model of a frictionless plane, for example; the Bohr model of the atom with a small, dense nucleus with electrons circling around it in quantised orbits like planets around a sun; evolutionary models of isolated populations – all of these exist in the scientist’s mind, not in nature. They are abstract mental representations, not mind-independent entities. Their power comes from the fact that they’re useful for helping to make testable predictions. But these, too, never take us outside experience, for they require specific kinds of perceptions performed by highly trained observers.

For these reasons, scientific ‘objectivity’ can’t stand outside experience; in this context, ‘objective’ simply means something that’s true to the observations agreed upon by a community of investigators using certain tools. Science is essentially a highly refined form of human experience, based on our capacities to observe, act and communicate.

[...] Inspired by these perspectives, we propose an alternative vision that seeks to move beyond the Blind Spot. Our experience and what we call ‘reality’ are inextricable. Scientific knowledge is a self-correcting narrative made from the world and our experience of it evolving together. Science and its most challenging problems can be reframed once we appreciate this entanglement.

Let’s return to the problem we started with, the question of time and the existence of a First Cause. Many religions have addressed [...] where everything comes from and how it originates, they assume the existence of an absolute power or deity that transcends the confines of space and time. [...] Unlike myth, however, science is constrained by its conceptual framework to function along a causal chain of events. The First Cause is a clear rupture of such causation [...] The idea of a First Cause, like the idea of a perfectly objective reality, is fundamentally theological.

These examples suggest that ‘time’ will always have a human dimension. The best we can aim for is to construct a scientific cosmological account that is consistent with what we can measure and know of the Universe from inside. The account can’t ever be a final or complete description of cosmic history. Rather, it must be an ongoing, self-correcting narrative. ‘Time’ is the backbone of this narrative; our lived experience of time is necessary to make the narrative meaningful. With this insight, it seems it’s the physicist’s time that is secondary; it’s merely a tool to describe the changes we’re able to observe and measure in the natural world. The time of the physicist, then, depends for its meaning on our lived experience of time.

We can now appreciate the deeper significance of our three scientific conundrums – the nature of matter, consciousness and time. They all point back to the Blind Spot and the need to reframe how we think about science. When we try to understand reality by focusing only on physical things outside of us, we lose sight of the experiences they point back to. The deepest puzzles can’t be solved in purely physical terms, because they all involve the unavoidable presence of experience in the equation. There’s no way to render ‘reality’ apart from experience, because the two are always intertwined.

To finally ‘see’ the Blind Spot is to wake up from a delusion of absolute knowledge. It’s also to embrace the hope that we can create a new scientific culture, in which we see ourselves both as an expression of nature and as a source of nature’s self-understanding. We need nothing less than a science nourished by this sensibility for humanity to flourish in the new millennium.

Magical Realist Offline
I salvaged from my past religious experience a deep respect for the experiential reality of the moment. To this day I construe reality as a construct of immediate experience and not a worldview maintained in one's head. What is real is what we experience, not what we think about it.
Syne Offline
All anti-science drivel.
C C Offline
(Jan 14, 2019 12:00 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: I salvaged from my past religious experience a deep respect for the experiential reality of the moment. To this day I construe reality as a construct of immediate experience and not a worldview maintained in one's head.

As far as personal usage of it goes I'd say that "reality" is a concept that understanding has abstracted from the memory of many different instances of immediate experience and then projected that idea back upon the current block-sequence of manifestations as an identifier or generalization of "what's going on". (It even happens during dreams.) The group origins of the concept would seem to amount to similar, but involving a consensus of multiple people agreeing that their extrospective experiences share the same content.

"Quantum Field Theory" as reified by scientific realism wouldn't qualify as what "reality" was originally extracted from and applied to. Furthermore, even referring to such an alien situation with the modifiers of "true or ultimate" would seem ludicrous. We might as well drop "reality" altogether, as the noun would not have a meaningful function anymore.

Reality seems confined to being a resident of mind IF both the concept and what it is about (the outer manifestations) disappear after death or during intervals of non-consciousness and termination of reasoning. Which is to say, dissolving back to what matter normally is to itself: not even nothing, the absence of everything. Which includes memory and intellectual activity not being around anymore to infer and protest: "But..but...but there is still reality, it is just invisible now like God!" (Yeah, right, that suddenly works when it's not in a religious context? Hah.) And again, what would actually be referred to would not be the "phenomenal reality" as expressed by brain or mind, but whatever weird abstraction a strain of scientific realism was advocating.

Quote:What is real is what we experience, not what we think about it.

In terms of newborns, that would seem to be the case (i.e., no linguistic thinking transpiring). Since there's little acquisition yet of memory affairs and then reasoning reifying inferred events and situations, concepts, "learned facts", and other non-immediate items later treated as existent or "reliable possibilities of experience". Even when they are not present or ever directly manifested during one's lifetime. With respect to the latter, a magically conscious character in a movie film reel would also feel that its world extended beyond the frames it could see (and resided in) due to the internal coherence of the movie or its story-line.

But this unconditioned newborn POV is a difficult "primal orientation" to maintain or revert back to because of all the years afterward of continually anticipating and predicting what will happen next in the sensory modes. Plus society continually conditions / preaches that it is more fundamental than the individual person or its phenomenal continuum of experiences. Eventually such conditioning develops into a moral matter -- a duty to accept the Collective Other as prior in rank and the doctrines of its culture and attribute an invisible or abstract manner of existing to other people and objects.

However, that temporary flirtation with solipsism is actually what falls out of civilization's later "intellectual" or reason-outputted view that most of existence is non-mental. Whereas older animism, commonsense realism, etc may be more along the line of any innate perspectives we have.

So-called "commonsense realism" seems to be a disguised version of some kind of omni-phenomenalism, panpsychism, or nondualism belief where objects are always distinguishing and "showing themselves" via a Universal Observer that's greater than the limitations of a finite observer. I mean, in commonsense realism a chair or a tree not only still feature their outward form dependent upon relationships to other points in space (existing as things outside themselves), but it revolves around how they exist from the scale of a human being. (In contrast to consisting of quantitative values in quantum fields or being gobbled up in the vaster configuration of a planet, galaxy, etc) So there's not only this subliminal or "not mentioned" condition of there being a Universal Observer or Mind underlying commonsense realism, but the "omnipresent consciousness" has an anthropocentric perception or dreaming bias.

Secular Sanity Offline
Quote:To finally 'see' the Blind Spot is to wake up from a delusion of absolute knowledge.

Well, I definitely agree with that sentence. Seeking the truth leads some to look towards the heavens and others towards the abyss, neither of which exist. That’s the problem. When you’re chasing phantoms, you discover phantoms.

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why science needs philosophy C C 0 15 Aug 31, 2020 03:52 AM
Last Post: C C
  New para-religious threat to science education: the Church of Woke C C 0 72 Jun 23, 2020 06:40 AM
Last Post: C C
  Imre Lakatos & the philosophy of bad science C C 0 55 May 10, 2020 06:02 PM
Last Post: C C
  The problem with the way scientists study reason (philosophy/methods of science) C C 0 115 Mar 15, 2020 07:24 PM
Last Post: C C
  Another "revolution is coming" to explain consciousness (philosophy of science) C C 2 261 Nov 6, 2019 08:56 PM
Last Post: C C
  Religion vs Philosophy in 3 Minutes + Philosophy of Science with Hilary Putnam C C 2 280 Oct 16, 2019 05:26 PM
Last Post: C C
  The C-theory of time asks if time really has a direction (philosophy of science) C C 1 189 Aug 5, 2019 02:14 AM
Last Post: Quantum Quack
  Bring back science & philosophy as natural philosophy C C 0 273 May 15, 2019 02:21 AM
Last Post: C C
  Time for a robust defence of truth in science? (philosophy of science) C C 0 288 Mar 18, 2019 08:15 AM
Last Post: C C
  (Philosophy of science videos) Laws of nature + After the end of evidence C C 8 696 Jan 8, 2019 08:55 PM
Last Post: Syne

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)