Is it possible to scientifically prove that we live in an objective world?

>subjective experience doesn't exist

u wot m8

You are why i consider science to be the most completely worthless pursuing in existence, and anyone who gives a fuck about science or practices science is a fucking retard.

Cogito ergo sum motherfucker

It points out a flaw in the conceptual framework that lead to the idea of subjective experience. It's basically the same thing.

Subjective experience relies on the idea of non-communicable information. Anything that can be experienced, can be communicated because experience is by definition a communication between one system and another.

You sound like a big dummy to me

>look at me using things I don't understand

Well go ahead and communicate to me what red looks like to you.

...

There are two schools of thought among neuroscientists. One school subscribes to panpsychism, explaining qualia. The other, like you, says there is no hard problem and consciousness is just an illusion. Personally, I'm leaning toward the former myself. That's why I used Descartes' immortal "cogito ergo sum"

AGH MY EYES

Panpsychism resolves the hard problem by eliminating qualia.

I asked for what red looks like for you, not green.

I see red a little differently out of each eye. Does that mean I have two souls?

Not really. It's saying consciousness is fundamental to matter. Read Christof Koch.

...

It means the communication vector is imperfect. But communication being imperfect is not the same as it being impossible.

It means you're a little bit color blind in one eye. This is very common.

>It points out a flaw in the conceptual framework that lead to the idea of subjective experience. It's basically the same thing.
I disagree. Zeno's paradox would suggest that motion is impossible, but through the addition of the notion of limits, some claim the paradox is resolvable. The notion of subjective experience can be amended to resolve apparent paradoxes. It seems rather silly to deny the possibility of subjective experience.

>scientifically prove
L0Lno fgt pls

My definition of panpsychism is a type of "universal one mind".

Is there a discrepancy in terminology here, or a miscommunication?

That sounds like something Koch would not disagree with. However, he explicitly states that this is the reason for the existence of qualia, not that they are an illusion. Dennett says consciousness is an illusion. I don't believe he espouses panpsychism.

>panpsychism
tfw you cross the line and step into religious belief.

Yeah, if only. The denials will continue for a good while, I'm aware.

Are you sure it's "the existence of qualia" and not "the existence of the thing that we label as qualia"? Because the label "qualia" implies the labelled object has the property of "subjective", and the quality "subjective" implies multiple(i.e. not universal one) minds. Something we apply a label to can exist, but the label can be wrong. The reason why discussion on this subject goes nowhere is because there is no "pure" label for the objects in question, there is no label that is merely a pointer with no attached qualities.

No because science relies on the assumption that objective reality exists.

Oh okay. No I don't think Koch thinks of "one mind" in that sense. Experience is still very much individual. Otherwise you could have direct experience of someone else's subjective experience. Clearly, this is not a thing that happens.

It's more that matter is conscious, and that it truly does feel "like something" to be an electron, and to be an individual cell in your body, as incomprehensible as that may sound to us. I forgot where I read this, but it was an interesting response by Schopenhauer to Kant's famous "things in themselves" problem. Schopenhauer said we can know a thing in itself because we are it.

Panpsychism can be deduced if you assume that the Problem of Other Minds is true. Cartesian Doubt proves that the number of minds in the universe is at least 1. The Problem of Other Minds assumes that more than 1 mind cannot be known. The Interaction Problem proves that every mind can be known. Therefore, there is exactly 1 mind.

This line of argumentation is so weak I don't know where to begin. This is the type of metaphysical conjecturing that relies on dubious assumptions to produce no tangible or verifiable result.

>Otherwise you could have direct experience of someone else's subjective experience.
>Clearly, this is not a thing that happens.
What function do you think that consciousness(general awareness of this conscious part of matter) serves? What do you think happens when a human's consciousness reaches a massive degree?

It's still probably true. It's been shown experimentally that brains can be linked, and that the resulting network experiences the world as one. You could theoreticall link up all thinking matter in this way. Consciousness is a singular phenomenon in this way. The only illusion here is just the physical barrier between entities with high "levels" of consciousness. We appear separate but in fact we are not. The only thing that separates us are our distinct memories, or the experiences that we have been able to record and recall at a later time.

I think it's just a byproduct of self-replication. Every function we have is purely in the service of self-replication.

Well first I want a link to those experiments, because I am very skeptical.
But let's assume those experiments happened and yielded the results you purport they did. Here is an analogy to what you say.
>fluids in different containers can be connected together through a tube
>Once this is done, they behave as a single fluid
>Fluids are thus a singular phenomenon
The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

But HOW does it serve it; what does it actually DO?

There have been several different ones. I don't feel like digging for the links right now. I think one researcher who did this is called Nicolelis.

Anyway, I think that analogy doesn't really work here. You could easily claim all of existence is indeed a singular phenomenon, all minds and all fluids included, particularly if you take fields to be the more 'fundamental' entities, as opposed to particles, which are mere excitations of said fields.

The nature of reality is mental, whatever that may mean I don't know, but I know it is true.

Being aware of surroundings helps self-replication to continue. Then you could ask, why self-replicate? That I don't know. I suppose that given that it probably feels like something to be an electron, and that electrons 'want' to be in certain states, and extrapolating from that, that it probably feels like something to be a molecule, and that molecules 'want' to be in certain states, and that the more complex molecules 'want' to perform more complex functions, you can probably imagine why certain molecules might 'want' to self-replicate. All of life's various functions can be extrapolated from that.

Consciousness isn't just awareness of surroundings, it's awareness of the conscious part of matter. So what information does that even provide?

But that was the aspect of consciousness (I thought) you were asking about.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "the conscious part of matter". We're working under the assumption that all matter is conscious itt.

In order to formulate the idea of panpsychism, we need to be aware that all matter is conscious. How do we have the ability to figure that out, and what evolutionary benefit does that ability grant humans?

Quantum mechanics clearly does away with objective reality.

Yeah, so I feel I addressed that in the other post. Having the ability to understand the world (even things as seemingly abstract and useless as panpsychism) and to solve problems has clear evolutionary benefits. We are also able to figure out and solve things that on the face of them have no direct benefit to our survival, like sudoku puzzles. It's because the brain doesn't discriminate to such a fine-grained level which act will bring direct benefit and which will not. If it's a problem, the brain can derive pleasure from solving it. It's pretty self-evident.

Never mind that understanding the nature of consciousness might one day turn out massively beneficial. It's true of all scientific advancement. You can never know immediately if what you're discovering will have any applications at all. If scientists thought only in terms of use, we'd still be banging rocks together.

What about my other question: what happens if the degree of something's consciousness goes up by a ton? What does it suddenly become much better at?

There are clearly degrees of consciousness. What it's getting better at is the amount of information it can be conscious or aware of at the same time. A worm is thus less aware of its surroundings than a dog is. Yet both are probably conscious.

retard

Sharing a subjective experience is more commonly known as communication, which is very real.

That's why I don't like the word objective. I prefer collective subjectivity.
Objective sounds like the opposite of subjective.

>tfw you'll never watch ur gf sleeping with that kind of open mouth while fapping fouriously sniffing her panties

sleeping girls is my fetish

The the subjective experience remains unique to the subject. You cannot share the experience per se, you can only describe it. The listerner doesn't end up with the same experience, he end up imagining an either embellished or impoverished version of it.

define scientifically
define prove
define live
define objective

If you want scientific-tier empirical proof, yes, the proof is very easy All one needs to do is conduct basic scientific tests to see if the world 'exists', such as whether it has depth, time, etc, and you have your scientific proof. If you want absolute proof. No. That is a higher caliber of proof and the fact that we experience the world subjectively rather than objectively makes this impossible. See Kant/Hume.

The world (including you OP) is itself subjective.

One person holding an unreasonable belief is a delusion.

Ten people holding an unreasonable belief is a cell.

One hundred people holding an unreasonable belief is a cult.

One thousand people holding an unreasonable belief is a sect.

One million people holding a belief (even an unreasonable one) can conceivably make their belief into the accepted reality.

One billion people holding an unreasonable belief and the people who disagree somehow become the unreasonable ones.

Numbers, the only real difference, is numbers.