the fault does not lie with science per se, and nor do all scientists, past and present, hold to the kind of reductionist views that the article seems to want to claim are near universal among scientists and lay people alike, — Janus

BUT IT DOESN'T CLAIM THAT. It is specifically NOT what is being claimed. And yet, that is the basis of the criticisms here. That's where the actual straw-man arguments are being mounted. It is not anti-science; it is criticizing physicalism and objectivism, right? It's not about science, per se, and neither is that what I'm saying. It is exasperating to be the subject of continuous straw-man, not to mention ad hom, criticisms about this point.

Science can have no truck, by virtue of the way it is practiced, with the transcendent. — Janus

Even though we don't know what it is, right?

There's methodological naturalism, which is to set aside or bracket out any causes that can't in principle be understood naturalistically. Then there's metaphysical naturalism which is the extrapolation of the principle to areas where it cannot possibly be applied. That is what is at issue.

It's in Wayfarer's interest that science remain a shitty, reductive undertaking: he feeds off it. — StreetlightX

This needs a response, even if it will probably be futile.

There was a particularly vitriolic couple of threads, one on Bernard Kastrup, and another on some experiment about the 'observation problem', that lead to particularly hostile, practically hysterical, outbursts along these lines, always involving the issue of the 'observer problem' and whether it has philosophical implications.

One of the topics that came up in those threads was the famous paper by Wheeler on the 'participatory universe'. Originally intended to once again address the 'observer problem', it is, in brief, that:

It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.

From the same source:

From a transcript of a radio interview on "The Anthropic Universe":

Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?

Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.

There are many more such musings in his paper law without law. In a sense, Wheeler was struggling with the implications of what he was saying - he hated anything like paranormal psychology or mysticism, and yet the idea of 'observer-participancy' seemed to suggest it.

This is the point that is at the centre of many of these debates. And the reason they're so bitter, is because they appear to undermine our natural sense of realism, that The Universe exists in just the way that common-sense and science show that it does, and we're simply - what was SLX' expression - 'moderately intelligent apes on a rock in space'.

Now what I argue is that the article we're discussing, and also many other philosophers, point out that the mind, the human intellect, has an ineliminable role in the construction of reality. It doesn't mean that 'the train wheels disappear when the passengers are on board' (one of G E Moore's criticisms of Berkeley, whom, mind you, Wheeler felt obliged to discuss in his paper.) What it means is that everything we know, including everything science knows, has an ineliminably subjective pole or aspect, which itself is never disclosed or seen or accounted for (hence, 'the blind spot'). But science was forced to account for it, by the 'observer problem' among other things.

Note this diagram from the Law without Law paper:



'What we call 'reality' consists of...Construction of the imagination', right? So this undermines both 'physicalism' and 'objectivism' - but it would be ridiculous to say that it 'undermines science'. And it's NOT what I'm saying, so please stop with the ad homs.

It is not anti-science; it is criticizing physicalism and objectivism, right? — Wayfarer

It seems to be implicit in the article that physicalism and objectivism are rife in the scientific community and that this is a problem. It also seems to suggest that under the current scientific paradigm physicalism and objectivism are inherent and inevitable. If you don't think this is what the article is about then what do you think it is about?

If all the authors wanted to critique is physicalism and objectivism per se, then why bring science into it at all. It is arguable that objectivism (at least the kind of objectivism which is detrimental to our attitudes to the natural world including humans) has been promulgated by the monetization and propertization of the world, by the twin ideas of using human resources to make profits, and of charging interest on loaned money.

Even though we don't know what it is, right? — Wayfarer

How could, and why should, science be expected to deal with something if it can have access to no determinate idea of what the "something' is?

There's methodological naturalism, which is to set aside or bracket out any causes that can't in principle be understood naturalistically. Then there's metaphysical naturalism which is the extrapolation of the principle to areas where it cannot possibly be applied. That is what is at issue. — Wayfarer

Who says methodological naturalism is being universally or even generally extrapolated to areas where it cannot be applied? Does the article say that? I ask that because if the article is not saying that it is, which would be the same as to say (and which is what you are denying it says) that scientists and the public following them generally are metaphysical naturalists and/ or physicalists, then what is the point of the article?

I could trot out the rather explicit quote by Wheeler that consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with QM, but you'd ignore it, as you always do. In any case, how it is that some long-winded irrelevancies about QM in any way addresses your constant need to present only the most vulgar picture of science is a total mystery.

Also, what's your issue with being a moderately intelligent ape on a watery rock? By any measure that's fucking amazing, without the need to invoke any of your woo. But I forget: you hate nature, you devalue and denigrate it, so you need more, always more.

The article in question is not about science, — Wayfarer

Really? Then why is it entitled:

"The blind spot of science is the neglect of lived experience"

rather than, for instance "The blind spot of reductive materialism..." or "The blind spot of Scientism....".

The answer of course, is that they would get nowhere near as many clicks with either of those honest titles, so they went for the dishonest one.

How do you know it would be "so different that you can't imagine", if you can't imagine how it would be different? — Janus

I can imagine what it would be like, you were the one who seemed to not be able to imagine how we could include the observer in the natural sciences (besides in quantum mechanics). I presumed that you couldn't imagine it precisely because you were assuming that the world is mind-independent (and how could the observer be relevant in such a world?)

Sure what we do affects the climate and may (apart from the immediate effects of, for example, drilling and excavation) over much longer timescales even affect the geology. But the climate and geology prior to the existence of humans would not have been affected by us, would it? — Janus

There again you're implicitly assuming a mind-independent world. What we think the world was like in a distant past depends on what we assume has an influence on that world. If instead you assume that humans and other living beings do have an influence on the world through what they desire, then you can't easily turn back the clock to infer that there ever was a time when there was no life or minds in any form whatsoever. And even if it is the case that there was a time when there wasn't any mind, it doesn't follow that climate and geology today are not affected by minds.

That we might be thought of as "heaps of particles that blindly follow physical laws while having the illusion of choice" just shows one way of thinking that obviously does not tell the whole story of human, or even animal, beings. Contemporary science is not so reductive as this outmoded Newtonian vision; but that seems to be taking longer to sink in with some of those who like to call themselves philosophers than it should. By reacting against this reductionist model you are actually perpetuating it, because you see only the "either/or" of (necessarily reductively materialist) science versus some kind of idealism. — Janus

It is certainly valuable that there are some physicists and scientists who are willing to interpret quantum mechanics as showing an influence of the observer on the world. And some interpretations of quantum mechanics do get far away from a Newtonian vision. But I cannot help but see that despite this, the widespread view is still reductive. The standard model of particle physics, which was built on quantum mechanics among other things, refers to the fundamental constituents of reality as being elementary particles, interacting with one another through forces, which is definitely heavily imbued with a Newtonian vision.

The thing is, quantum mechanics the way it is presented is too inintuitive, physics students are told that they cannot understand it, that all they can do is "shut up and calculate". So these future scientists mostly never really adhere to a quantum mechanical view of the world, they retain deep down a Newtonian vision that they can grasp, and only forget about that vision when they manipulate quantum mechanical equations, which again is why the standard model of particle physics that came later is made of particles interacting through forces, just like in a Newtonian vision.

And besides, the observer effect in quantum mechanics doesn't have to be interpreted as the influence of consciousness on reality. Many simply choose to view it as the idea that any measuring apparatus that is introduced changes the setup of the experiment, and so changes the result of the experiment. Contemporary scientific experiments do not force scientists to adhere to such or such view, they are the ones who force their view onto the experiments.

I can imagine what it would be like, you were the one who seemed to not be able to imagine how we could include the observer in the natural sciences (besides in quantum mechanics). I presumed that you couldn't imagine it precisely because you were assuming that the world is mind-independent (and how could the observer be relevant in such a world?) — leo

No, I asked how the observer could be included in the observations in, for example, biology, chemistry or geology. If you can imagine how, then explain or describe. The question of the mind-dependence or mind Independence of what is observed is irrelevant to what is observed, as far as i can tell.

The article in question is not about science,
— Wayfarer
Really? Then why is it entitled:

"The blind spot of science is the neglect of lived experience" — andrewk

Fair point! I have to cop to that. But the article is explicitly aimed at physicalism and objectivism. Do you think these are essential to science? You haven't said anything about that point.

what's your issue with being a moderately intelligent ape on a watery rock? — StreetlightX

That we’re not apes?

Re the Wheeler quote - if that’s taken in the context of the paper in question, it is simply the modest claim that 'what the scientist is thinking' has no outcome on a particular experiment. But the whole point of 'the participatory principle' is, indeed, participatory, as distinct from 'objective' and 'physical'.

That we’re not apes? — Wayfarer

And yet we share more DNA with chimpanzees, about 99 % if memory serves, than we do with any other animal. All the available evidence seems to suggest, according to the paleontologists, that we evolved from a common ancestor.

yet we share more DNA with chimpanzees, about 99 % if memory serves, than we do with any other animal. All the available evidence seems to suggest, according to the paleontologists, that we evolved from a common ancestor. — Janus

No f***ing kidding?? Remember Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False . Or does that title just make him another science-hating fanatic?

What the fuck does that have to do with whether we share common ancestors with chimpanzees? To say that we do is not necessarily to embrace a "materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature".

I will sign off with the quotation of the concluding paragraph of the article:

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.

No, I asked how the observer could be included in the observations in, for example, biology, chemistry or geology. If you can imagine how, then explain or describe. The question of the mind-dependence or mind Independence of what is observed is irrelevant to what is observed, as far as i can tell. — Janus

I gave an example for geology, saying how the desires of living beings can have an influence on it. If these desires are shaped in part by what these beings observe, then the observer is involved in the way the world changes. Whereas the current widespread view is to see living beings as passive machines obeying to unchanging laws.

As to chemistry, it could be possible that what is desired has an influence on the way some molecules behave within the body, for instance in the brain. And before you say that would violate 'proven' laws of physics such as the conservation of energy, consider that these laws are mostly tested in passive and basic situations where life has a negligible influence, not within complex organisms.

You are merely pointing at vague possibilities. Even if it were true (which we could never definitely know to be true) that human desires somehow influence geological and/or chemical processes, that fact would not make any difference to what is actually observed, and the bodies of theory that deal with chemical and geological processes.

Yeah, run away as usual, rather than engaging in argument. I really don't know why you bother with this site, Wayfarer; it seems that all you want to do is peddle your pet ideas, not have them critiqued. Philosophy is for critiquing, without that it loses all sense, and becomes some kind of religion, where anyone who disagrees with you will be characterized by you as "one who doesn't understand". This branding of infidels is so characteristic of religion!

That we’re not apes? — Wayfarer

A nice deflationary answer, if only what motivated it wasn't a claim for human exceptionalism as being beyond or above nature altogether.

Re the Wheeler quote - if that’s taken in the context of the paper in question, it is simply the modest claim that 'what the scientist is thinking' has no outcome on a particular experiment. But the whole point of 'the participatory principle' is, indeed, participatory, as distinct from 'objective' and 'physical'. — Wayfarer

Quote this supposed context, verbatim. I dare you. Liar.

a claim for human exceptionalism as being beyond or above nature altogether. — StreetlightX

We're clearly not apes. And furthermore, it's not even the point at issue. The point at issue is 'the role of the mind in the construction of reality'. Read the legend in figure above, which makes exactly this point - how 'what we call reality is a product of the imagination between the "iron posts" of observation' - something I am entirely happy to agree with.

Quote this supposed context, verbatim. — StreetlightX

This was all gone through here. At the time, I pointed out that immediately prior to Wheeler's statement that "consciousness has nothing to do with the quantum process", he says "Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists "out there" independent of us, this is a view which can no longer be upheld. There's a strange sense in which this is a "participatory universe".' And that is the point at issue in this debate, because it's directly connected with the challenge to the ideas of 'objectivism' and 'physicalism'.

So, what Wheeler is saying about "consciousness" in the narrow and specific sense, is simply that it makes no difference as far as measurement or doing the experiment is concerned. That's the sense in which ' "consciousness" has nothing to do with the process' - in the lab! But the point of the "participatory reality" is that it's *not* a scientific theory, but Wheeler musing about the implications of observer-dependency in a larger, philosophical sense. (See Rosenblum and Kutner, Quantum Enigma, p168. And his Law without Law paper is a speculative extravaganza, it should be said.)

As I said, it is just this kind of discovery which has lead to the 'blind spot' discussion. Christian Fuchs, the developer of Quantum Cubism, was one of the participants in the Workshop, and is also mentioned in the paper.

At the time, I pointed out that immediately prior to Wheeler's statement that "consciousness has nothing to do with the quantum process", he says "Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists "out there" independent of us, this is a view which can no longer be upheld. There's a strange sense in which this is a "participatory universe".' — Wayfarer

Correct, these lines preceed Wheeler's unequivocal declaration that "consciousness has nothing to do with the quantum process": that consciousness has no such role qualifies what he says of the participatory universe: it is explicitly a caution he adds so that the participatory universe thesis is not interpreted according to your misreading. Which is to say: this is exactly not what 'is at issue in the debate' because Wheeler explicitly rules it out of the running as a way to understand the thesis. More than that, he rules in exactly what he means: "we are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some persons? ... That is a desperate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomenon". (my emphasis)

That you take what Wheeler explicitly calls a 'separate part of the story' to be 'the point at issue' speaks to either your utter illiteracy at best, or your wilful attempts at distortion at worst. I think its quite obviously the latter. Having put this rubbish to bed, one can only wonder what any of this has to do with anything other than your propensity to bring up irrelevant nonsense in place of actual argument.

But the article is explicitly aimed at physicalism and objectivism. Do you think these are essential to science? — Wayfarer

I do not regard them as being essential to science, and they are not part of the way I look at science. I am pretty confident the many religious, spiritual, idealist or other non-materialist, non-physicalist scientists feel the same way.

That you take what Wheeler explicitly calls a 'separate part of the story' to be 'the point at issue' speaks to either your utter illiteracy at best, or your wilful attempts at distortion at worst. I think its quite obviously the latter. — StreetlightX

Then how do you interpret that statement that Wheeler makes, that 'what we think of as reality consists of an elaborate paper-mache construction', under the "R" figure above? As I've had a go at interpreting the quotation you have provided, it would be fair if you tried to do the same.

Are you aware of the philosophical implications of the 'delayed-choice experiment?' This is an elaboration of the original double-slit experiment, which shows that an experimental choice made after the target object has travelled its path, actually determines which path has been travelled. In other words, an observation now affects what happened previously. This is one of the findings that forced Wheeler to adopt the 'participatory universe' idea - which is a shocking idea, from the perspective of earlier science.

he rules in exactly what he means: "we are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some persons... That is a desperate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomenon".

'Separate', not 'desperate', although the slip is telling. But, as he says, it is not to be confused with 'quantum phenomenon'. Again, this refers to what is going on in the lab. But 'the act of registration' is still fundamental, and that act is by an observer making a measurement - hence the 'participatory' nature of the model. And, more importantly, still part of the story.

There is some speculation that 'observation' might be extended to include all manner of physical interactions between all kinds of objects, as well as just measurement by a device, but that is by no means settled, and many of the original figures involved in the debate didn't accept it; Schrodinger maintained 'a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful' (Mind and Matter, 1958). So at best it's a vexed point.

I have often heard of that quote from Neils Bohr, 'if you haven't been shocked by quantum physics then you haven't understood it.' I tracked down the source of that quote - he said it at the end of a talk he gave for the Vienna Circle positivists. He talked about the counter-intuitive nature of uncertainty and quantum objects, and at the end they all nodded sagely and applauded politely. Taken aback by their response, that's when he said it - as if he thought that they really didn't 'get' it. Because it is shocking, and it does undermine 'objectivism'. That's why I think you keep lashing out over it.

I do not regard them as being essential to science, and they are not part of the way I look at science. I am pretty confident the many religious, spiritual, idealist or other non-materialist, non-physicalist scientists feel the same way. — andrewk

Of course, I knew that about you. So again, I was perplexed with your reaction, as I think you're basically in agreement with it.

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.

On second perusal I thought it worthwhile to address this. I don't believe scientists generally have a delusion of absolute knowledge. In fact it seems to be generally the case that scientists think knowledge is fallible and subject to potentially endless revision.

A new culture of science is being created, at least in the field of biology, more aligned with systems or information theories. Also we are coming ever more to think of ourselves as "expressions of nature", and not as transcendent beings incarnated in a fallen world. We certainly need science above all if we are to flourish or even survive far into the new millennium; that is we need to understand how nature really works and begin seeing ourselves as an integral part of nature rather than as separate, special, fallen but potentially superior, transcendent beings who are more important than the rest of nature. This is a paradigm shift we need to make in order to be able to bear the radical changes to our thinking and lifestyle that must come with the inevitable collapse of the present economic system in the near future.

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.

This is the moment he departs from reason to hyperbole.

This is not an impediment to science, just a place where other ways of knowing are more useful.
"Life and Mind" are not "GONE", science does not say that. There is no "lifeless matter". Simply enough the lived experience is the place where other means of understanding and knowing come into play. In the same way you cannot hear colour, and you cannot see music, we cannot expect science to unpack and describe everything.

Are you aware of the philosophical implications of the 'delayed-choice experiment?' — Wayfarer

Yes, and the results of the experiment add yet one more piece of evidence that 'observation' at the quantum level is irrevocably determined by the apparatus of experimental set-up, insofar as it is the position of the shutters on the photodetector which erase the which-path information (open or closed), that 'determine' the appearance of the interference pattern or not. 'Consciousness' again has no part to play in any of this, no matter what woo-sayers like to peddle; As some Quantum Eraser experimentalists put it: "In conclusion, our results corroborate Bohr's view that the whole experimental setup determines the possible experimental predictions" (Herzog et. al, cited in Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway). Barad herself comments: "the atom is not a separate object but rather an inseparable part of the phenomenon (that includes the micromaser cavities, the photodetector-shutter system, the double slit diffraction grating, and the screen among other elements)".

Wheeler’s ‘papier-mache’ comment is just an elaboration of the consequences of just the ‘decision’ made as to how one sets-up one’s physical experimental apparatus. Hence the line that immediately precedes the papier-mache comment: “By deciding what questions our quantum registering equipment shall put in the present we have an undeniable choice in what we have the right to say about the past”: the ‘choice of question’ of course, is nothing other than how one configures a physical set of measuring equipment. It's worth noting that even your article is in concord with this: "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."

Beyond the topic of beating this mutilated, dead, horse however, it's worth noting that just because some tiny corner of physics has no tuck with some fuzzy notion of 'lived experience', this says nothing about the engagement of science with areas in which 'lived experience' is in fact pertinent. The distinguishing mark of the empirical is to follow where the evidence takes one, and not simply play the paranoiac and lament that lived experience has no place in science tout court. QM just happens to be a place where wannabe woo-peddlers like to make their bed because few people understand it, and it's one of the few places they can get away with the bullshit they do. Like in this case.

Wheeler’s ‘papier-mache’ comment is just an elaboration of the consequences of just the ‘decision’ made as to how one sets-up one’s physical experimental apparatus. — StreetlightX

He says that ‘what we call reality is a construction’. In the same article he says this is the very thing that Einstein could not concede. It’s not dead horse, it’s a live issue, but obviously dead to you.

So, the participatory universe model has an ineluctably subjective pole or aspect, which is real but not apparent. You will only designate this as woo because you can’t accomodate it.

He's right on both counts, but not in the way you misread.

How is ‘reality a construction’ reconcilable with scientific realism, objectivism, and physicalism?

Wheeler says in the section Phenomenon that ‘the dependence of what is observed upon the choice of experimental apparatus is what made Einstein unhappy. It conflicts with the view that the universe exists ‘out there ‘ independent of all acts of observation.’ And this is exactly the point at issue in the essay.

He goes on to say, a phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is measured. So, what is it before then? We can’t say. Which again is the general thrust of the Copenhagen interpretation, often misconstrued as positivism.

And this is exactly the point at issue in the essay. — Wayfarer

It isn't because you believe in some bullshit equivocation between observation and consciousness which is pure, pseudoscientific excrement.

Consciousness' again has no part to play in any of this, no matter what woo-sayers like to peddle; — StreetlightX

But observation does, that is irrefutable.

Can’t you see the hot button now? It’s totally obvious.

If all the authors wanted to critique is physicalism and objectivism per se, then why bring science into it at all. — Janus

Because science - as it is practised - includes and embraces physicalism and objectivism?