Theories

Between belief and fact are theories. If beliefs are the acceptance of something as true which has no descriptive or explanatory value and no predictive power, then what I am referring to as theories are the opposite; the acceptance of something as true which has descriptive or explanatory value, or predictive power. Although the denotation of belief accurately describes most theories, I am using both terms differently here. Theories are different from beliefs in that they refer directly to an objective component; they describe, explain, or predict some part of the universe for which knowledge is possessed.

In another way of talking it, facts are objective, beliefs are subjective, and theories bridge the gap between the two because theories are a subjective analysis of objective phenomena. Theories are the inevitable byproduct of intelligent, conscious creatures with sense receptors (remember, I am classifying mental states as objective phenomena). Is this clear? Since a theory requires sensory data and a subjective experience, it is necessary that these two requirements are met.

For the materialists out there who believe that consciousness is epiphenomenal, this idea is utter nonsense because they believe that what we call consciousness is really just the firing patterns of neurons in the brain and so, there is no subjectivity. While I would like to cover this some day, it simply cannot be done quickly in any way that would make sense to a die-hard materialist. For those who are undecided explicitly or implicitly (many don’t know they are materialists, although they cling to many dualistic concepts, and so, are partial materialists), I can offer up some nuggets that may help them understand that consciousness is real and a fundamentally material universe is incoherent. It goes some thing like this: A subjective experience is a constrained experience. The scope of our awareness and decision space is limited to a seemingly unique perspective which is based on a set of intrinsic features and our interaction with our environment. What is like to be each of us is the result of our limitations and experiences. This is fundamentally the nature of subjectivity and while there is an objective reality of which we are a part, we only know it through our individually, somewhat unique experience of it. Yes, I am aware of the standard refutation of this description. And no, I don’t find it convincing because a real experience and sensory data of an experience are not the same thing (presupposition of the non-existence of subjectivity) and because it requires the assumption that materialism is true (the premise and conclusion are the same) and consequently, that mental states are caused by the brain. None of these are necessarily true and I personally think they are nonsense, but more on that another time.

So, what does this mean? Am I saying that theories are not scientific? Am I just redefining words in an effort to change their meanings?

At this point, what I am doing is showing that virtually nothing is purely objective as far as we can know. Although I am using some terms unconventionally, I am doing so to avoid the sloppy conceptualizations that I think many people have. In my next post, I will begin to explore theories and beliefs and their seemingly codependent existence with more musings and some examples.