Realist Versus instrumentalist Thinking
For the past 400 years, mainstream Western scientific inquiry has operated firmly within the boundaries of Realism. Scientific Realism is built on a foundation of minimalism and simplicity —or that everything the five basic senses of touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing experience is all there is to be had, and anything else is imagination, hallucination or delusion.
Scientific realists believe only one neutral arena of reality exists accounting for everything and everyone in existence
However, and much to the chagrin of realists, both neuroscience and modern physics are actually beginning to disprove scientific realism, by demonstrating it to be an optical delusion of consciousness.
According to Physicist Howard Wiseman of Griffith University, as argued in the October 2015 edition of the Nature Scientific Publication, the body of experimentation that Quantum Physics has gathered over the past century has almost entirely falsified scientific realism as an accurate way to view reality....
Due to this realization, Dr. Wiseman and his contemporaries are instead embracing Instrumentalism. Instrumentalists believe that what a human being sees is based wholly on her or his beliefs about what does or does not exist to be seen in the first place. Or, and according to Physicist Robert March, that the objects we think we see in the space outside of our own minds and bodies, are nothing more than fictional constructs of our minds. Furthermore, these fictional constructs do not correspond exactly to the way we actually see them.
Dr. Candace Pert's Experimental Instrumentalism
These images cause neuropeptides to interact with the various hormone centers located along the spinal column in our bodies, and that correlate directly with our seven chakra plexuses. Once this interaction takes place, corresponding mental, emotional and physical actions or reactions occur.
By understanding this electrochemical process, neuroscientists can now understand that how people interpret and react to situations, circumstances and interactions has more to do with their own inner workings than anything taking place outside of their head....
Or as Physicist Robert March believes, the closest anyone comes to existing in a reality outside of their minds corresponds directly to the fictional constructs of that reality hormones create upon interaction with neurotransmitters. Only when this interaction occurs, can the brain tell the sensory organs like eyes and ears what to see and hear. And only when that sight or sound takes place, can anyone experience anything at all.
Objectivity is For The birds
Neurobiologist Susan Barry drives the wholly subjective nature of brain-eye-time coordination home in anecdotal reality by recounting an experience she had when looking out her kitchen window one morning. What follows illustrates the fact that what we see is governed to a large extent by what we expect to see. As Dr. Barry explains, our brains set us up in advance for what our eyes should expect to see, instead of simply decoding what our eyes perceive as objective reality:
“This idea came home to me one morning when I glanced out my kitchen window at the bird feeder outside. Small woodland birds, such as Nuthatches, Juncos and Chickadees, were the usual visitors to the feeder. But on this day, I happened to glance up from the kitchen sink and saw five enormous wild turkeys, one male and four females, looking in on me. The male was so tall he practically looked me in the eye. Despite their large size and distinctive appearance, it took me a full second to figure out what I was seeing. Had I glanced outside and seen the usual Juncos and Chickadees, I would have recognized and distinguished these birds, despite their small size, in much less time.
So why did it take so long to see the big wild turkeys? Because I didn’t expect to see them. What we see depends to a large extent upon what we anticipate seeing. The first area of our visual cortex to receive input from our eyes is called the primary visual cortex. It was once thought that neurons in this area respond almost exclusively to stimuli coming from the eyes. But we now know that the activity of these neurons is affected by “higher” brain centers, which are involved in prediction and planning. When the brain can predict what will be seen, it can prime the appropriate circuits in the primary visual cortex and other regions, allowing us to interpret visual stimuli more quickly.
So, when I looked out the kitchen window that morning, my brain may have readied the circuits in my visual cortex for what I expected to see —the usual small birds at the feeder. The image of turkeys threw my visual system into a momentary state of confusion. Some circuits had to be suppressed and others activated in order for me to make sense of the surprising view outside my kitchen window.”
Instrumentalism in Action: The Color Spectrum
However, even people with 20/20 vision are only able to see approximately 5% of the entire light-based color spectrum--while the other 95% of light based energy-frequency in the Universe is invisible to human eyes, but incredibly real and consequential nonetheless....
Visual limitation means we fail to perceive new color combinations Dr. Crane proved do indeed exist, as well as established, well-known forms of color like ultraviolet light. However, this doesn't make what we cannot see any less real than the reality we presently can. What is more, our very limited instrumentalist perceptions of visual reality are wholly subjective in nature.
Inherent Subjectivity Versus "Scientific Objectivity"
Stop. Look around you. Take inventory of this exact moment: Sounds, smells, touches, tastes, sights, take it all in. In no way does this moment stand alone or apart from every other moment leading to this one. Rather, every one of the moments in your life plays an inseparable part in all moments to come. In other words, perception is based solely on subjectivity.
Subjectivity means we view the world and our place in it as nothing more than the sum of our personal experiences....
It is impossible to detach ourselves from our experiences or to view the world outside of ourselves from a non-judgmental standpoint. Subjectivity stands in contrast to the theory of objectivity.
Objectivity is the belief humans can remove themselves an experience to view reality in a non-judgmental sense....
Although this sounds ideal in theory, in practice objectivity amounts to a delusion of consciousness causing many people to be extremely judgmental of others because they think their points of view are Universal or absolute. Returning now to scientific realism and to put this all in scientific terms, instrumentalists concede the existence of other reality paradigms, even if they cannot see those paradigms from another person’s vantage point—while realists refuse to acknowledge the existence of any other reality paradigms than their own, because they are not willing to see their own biases as being biased in the first place.
Metaphor and Narrative
Think for a moment about all the factors influencing your subjective perception of reality, including:
Metaphors sustain our mental and behavioral patterns that continue to shape our lives going forward. Metaphors also shape and perpetuate the norms and values of a society, based on the transmission of the above influences....
Metaphors are transmitted through the employment of various narrative vehicles. Narrative vehicles include:
Narrative vehicles rely on subjective language to transmit metaphors. Language itself is rife with bias, because societies create and sustain language based on shared subjective viewpoints. One of the easiest ways to understand the power of subjective language when transmitting metaphors via narrative devices is a social event. The way someone recalls a social event to other people is based solely on one’s subjective relation to that event.
After all, the same event, situation or interaction can mean totally different things to two people depending on which side of the tracks, or for that matter the border, one stands on when an event occurs....
In this way, narrative vehicles provide a body of evidence that exposes and perpetuates a person’s and/or a society’s subjective metaphorical biases.
On Ships That Pass Into Sight
“The ship passed within a quarter mile of them (the natives) and they scarce lifted their eyes from their employment. I was almost inclined to think that attentive to their business and deafened by the noise of the surf they neither saw nor heard her (the ship) go past them. Not one was once observed to stop and look towards the ship; they pursued their way in all appearance entirely unmoved by the neighborhood of so remarkable an object as a ship must necessarily be to people who have never seen one.”
Banks’ biases, including his belief in the superiority of his culture’s maritime technology, led him to decry the culture he and his shipmates encountered that did not appreciate what Banks considered a seminal technological achievement. In this regard, both the seafarers and shore dwellers indeed had their biases, even if Banks’ biases led to a negative implication of what he saw as technologically inferior native cultures.... instead of his culture's propensity for demoralizing, degrading and outright terrorizing those same native cultures over the centuries that would follow.
Columbus related a similar account upon returning to Europe about native cultures in the West Indies not engaging with his approaching ships and crew until the point that, at least according to him, they were able to reconcile the existence of the ships and his crew with their own existing perceptions of reality. During her life, Dr. Pert frequently employed Columbus’s account to support what her research into molecules of emotion clinically validated: That what we think we see in front of our eyes is based as much, if not more on our own prior experiential reality, than it is on some neutral object existing outside of our heads in the first place.
Not only is this phenomena based on personal experiences of each cultural adherent, it is also based on the shared metaphors and narratives of the culture bonding adherents together in camaraderie. Of course, this instrumentalist framework for consciousness is also what Dr. Barry came to understand after her experience that morning with the wild turkeys.
This also why even though European seagoing vessels metaphorically represented exploration and evolution to those who sailed them, those same vessels took on a drastically different meaning to the indigenous inhabitants of cultures and nations that we already well established long before the Europeans came forth into their homelands. For the native inhabitants, those same ships came to metaphorically represent oppression, injustice, inequality and the death of their cultures in irreparable ways. Or, in the piercing words of Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano:
“In 1492, the natives discovered they were Indians, discovered they lived in America, discovered they were naked, discovered that the Sin existed, discovered they owed allegiance to a King and Kingdom from another world and a God from another sky, and that this God had invented the guilty and the dress, and had sent to be burnt alive who worships the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, and the Rain that wets it.”
Alan Slater's Reality "Upside Down Cake"
Regardless, the physically evident photo itself is technically objective, even if said photo will ultimately be viewed in a wholly subjective sense by any human being who ever looks at it. This is because unlike the camera film, our brains process the familiarity or foreignness of new, learned experiences in relation to our perceptions based on our existing experiences. As a result, and especially concerning foreign experiences that challenge existing expectations, our neural pathways may not necessarily refashion themselves to the point we consciously perceive our everyday realities in a significantly different sense than before the new experience occurred.
Even though neuroplasticity never ceases, early developmental stages of life are by far the most fertile. By the time we are three years old, our brains have approximately 15,000 synapses per neuron. This is about twice the average amount of synapses in an adult human brain after the process of “pruning” occurs. Pruning refers to normalizing new experiences within the confines of stronger neural pathways (existing experiences), in order to conform our daily lives to our conscious expectations/biases for them. Even though the human brain never stops learning and adapting throughout its lifetime, pruning neural pathways creates a cognitive tunneling effect where the means and ends of our everyday existences become self-fulfilling prophecies of one's formal and/or informal educative processes.
However, there are also significant differences between camera film and the human brain. The film and camera are objective devices. This means that the camera and its film will record whatever four-dimensional construct it focuses on how it actually appears. Granted, whatever construct a photographer chooses to focus on is the result of his or her own subjective bias of course, as is how the construct being photographed is perceived by anyone else who sees the image at any point.
Scientists Still Have hormones
Einstein believed that if the hidden variable model could be proven, it would mean that some description of reality exists that can indeed be objective. Alas, he could not because there is no hidden variable existing outside of our ability to control it. Rather, there is only our 11th dimensional human bio-body suits, and through them our connection to our living, intelligent implicate order Universe-at-large.
Einstein Wasn't the Only Hormonal Scientist
Bacon believed humans had a religious duty to use their God-given abilities of objectively realist reasoning to read the book of nature. Bacon even went as far as personally penning the religious prophecy presented in the Book of Daniel that states, “Only when humanity, by its own efforts restored its original dominion over nature would Christ come again, to rule on Earth for a millennium—a thousand years—before the general resurrection.”
Chemist and Physicist Robert Boyle agreed with Bacon when he said “The more we learn about the world engine, the more we are persuaded not just of the existence of a creator God, but also of his creative wisdom.” Boyle took his scientific position very seriously from a theological point-of-view. He believed that in the same way the authority to interpret scripture traditionally defined priests, he and his contemporaries were ordained philosophers of nature on behalf of the Protestant-Christian God.
Lest any sophisticated "modern" human beings begin to think for even one moment that somehow these men's subjectively biased religious views do not have any bearing on science today, Isaac Newton has something to say about that when he wrote:
“It seems probable to me that God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them; and that these primitive particles being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them; even so very hard so as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first creation.”
There we have it: The fundamental framework for particle physics that, to this day, still influences physicists based not on "good" science.... but instead, on a few influential men's (subjectively biased) takes on the literal interpretation of their religion.
So What Does This mean for Science and scientists?
Well, whatever you want it to mean actually! After all, such must be the case when no two human beings perceive or process reality the exact same way. However, what this does mean across the board is that any human being, scientist or not, who claims to be able to somehow shut off their hormones to be able to objectively view reality outside of their own head, is probably more biased than anyone who will own up to the fact that there is no such thing as objectivity or neutrality. Let's face it, it's now scientific fact that human beings just aren't wired in an objective fashion.
In fact, and based on the overwhelming body of evidence courtesy of Dr. Pert and her contemporaries, both states are scientifically impossible to achieve, and theoretically little more than optical delusions of consciousness of epic, if not epidemic proportions
It isn't that we admit weakness or shortcomings by being honest with ourselves and others about our own subjective natures. Rather, doing so is taking the first step to scientifically and spiritually understanding anything about our own inner true selves and thus, and outer Universe-at-large we occupy.... as well as really beginning to work on refashioning our neural networks in order to view ourselves, our neighbors and the implicate order Universe-at-large we all occupy in less biased sense than we ever could otherwise.
If you would like to be counted among those who do, please visit our Services page to learn more about how our scientifically spiritual development services can assist you in your quest, including our Intuitive Spiritual Coaching Program.... and we welcome you to contact us with any questions you might have.
DONATE SECURELY VIA PAYPAL HERE
Please help keep The Human Radio Educational Research Project online. To learn more about how you donations help us and others in kind, please visit our Services page. To make a donation directly, please click on the PayPal icon below.