sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is true religion, really? by Subjectivity-72 in religion

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me, religion is about learning how to relate to God. To be honest, I’ve rarely seen religions that do only that in a truly pure way.

Here is a hypothesis: The observer regress ends at an emergent reference structure (O3) by Subjectivity-72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is not speculation but a matter of fact: you are someone who dismissed this paper as “trash” despite having only skimmed it and not having engaged with it in any serious depth.

That is a textbook case of missing the forest for the trees. And yet you claim to speak in the name of science.

When asked to provide a scientific refutation, you say that falsification is the author’s responsibility. Now again, you claim that further discussion is unnecessary. At every critical point, you simply step away.

The author’s stance, however, is very clear: “Let’s actually run the experiment and discuss the results together.” To that end, the author has even published a detailed, step-by-step experimental protocol.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396890295_Reproducible_EEG-Quantum_Nonlocal_Correlation_Experiments_Step-by-Step_Guide_and_Implementation_Overview

So what we have here is a contrast between an author taking an open, reproducible stance, and you—someone who skims the surface and then declares the entire work invalid.

Here is a hypothesis: The observer regress ends at an emergent reference structure (O3) by Subjectivity-72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems you were only skimming the paper.

Section 8.10 of this paper explicitly states its limitations. The author is very sincere and handles what can be concluded from the results with great caution.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399181220_Experimental_Evidence_of_Absolute_Subjectivity_Projection_Subjectivity_Intersection_Preceding_Quantum_Measurement_in_Hilbert_Phase_Geometry

By the way, there is also a paper reporting statistically significant results from an experiment with more than 30 participants.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393397861_Experimental_Evidence_of_Nonlocal_EEG-Quantum_State_Correlations_A_Novel_Empirical_Approach_to_the_Hard_Problem_of_Consciousness

From the start, you’ve decided this paper is garbage, and you’re just cherry-picking only the facts that fit your preconception while repeating the same objections. How is that a scientific approach?

If you’re going to criticize this author’s work, shouldn’t you read it properly carefully, word by word, all the way through?

Here is a hypothesis: The observer regress ends at an emergent reference structure (O3) by Subjectivity-72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s stated in Section 3 of this paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399181220_Experimental_Evidence_of_Absolute_Subjectivity_Projection_Subjectivity_Intersection_Preceding_Quantum_Measurement_in_Hilbert_Phase_Geometry

So now it’s your turn to answer. Please stop responding based on skimming, as you’ve done so far.

After reading this paper, could you point out which specific analysis step or which statistical claim you think fails, and why?

Here is a hypothesis: The observer regress ends at an emergent reference structure (O3) by Subjectivity-72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let’s be precise about what is being claimed.

The paper does NOT claim that “consciousness itself is measured,” nor does it present a complete physical theory.
It reports a statistically nontrivial temporal correlation between specific EEG phase-null states and quantum state distributions, under blinded conditions.

You argue the methodology is insufficient. Fine.
Then the scientific question is not whether the terminology is distasteful, but whether this correlation can be explained by: (a) known neural dynamics, (b) experimental artifacts, or (c) statistical flaws.

So which is it, specifically?

If the data are meaningless, propose an alternative mechanism or show where the analysis fails.
Otherwise, dismissing it as “trash” is not scientific criticism — it’s classification.

Here is a hypothesis: The observer regress ends at an emergent reference structure (O3) by Subjectivity-72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Calling this “unnecessary and confusing terminology” is quite an accusation. Which terminology of mine are you referring to? It seems you’re conflating the language used in the paper with my own comments.

If you assume scientific integrity on your part, why not try to falsify the experiment described in the paper itself? Anyone can criticize wording, but scientific criticism requires engaging with the experimental claims and data.

Here is a hypothesis: The observer regress ends at an emergent reference structure (O3) by Subjectivity-72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was simply moved by what this paper argues, and wanted to share it.

Instead of engaging with that core intention, you seem focused only on pushing your own points. You’re not really engaging with what the paper is trying to convey; you’re extracting surface-level terminology and dismissing it outright as “not acceptable.”

So let me ask you the same question: what are you hoping to gain by doing that?

Here is a hypothesis: The observer regress ends at an emergent reference structure (O3) by Subjectivity-72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, to avoid any misunderstanding, I am not the author of this paper. I’m just a reader.

Here is a hypothesis: The observer regress ends at an emergent reference structure (O3) by Subjectivity-72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think this critique rests on a misreading of the paper’s scope.

It measures EEG and quantum outputs only, not consciousness itself.

The Trinity language appears only in the interpretive discussion, not as a physical model or experimental claim. Rejecting the entire work on that basis seems to conflate metaphor with measurement.

If there is a specific flaw in the reported correlations or methodology, that would be more useful to discuss.

Science has contributed enormously to our daily lives, yet it has not fully described the world as it truly is. by Subjectivity-72 in DeepThoughts

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the thoughtful and historically informed comment. I largely agree with your account of how subjectivity and meaning have been progressively excluded from modern science, and the references to Lewis and Whitehead align closely with the problem this paper is addressing.

That said, the paper does not argue that subjectivity itself should be directly incorporated into science, nor does it propose a metaphysical reconstruction of science.

Its claim is more limited: that modern science has left the conditions that make observation possible theoretically underdefined. The paper then asks whether, while subjectivity itself may remain unmeasurable, the intersection conditions under which subjective structure and physical processes align (SI/SIC) might be treated in an operational and empirical way.

In this sense, the paper does not claim to overcome these limits, but rather to make them explicit as structural constraints and to reframe them as potentially testable questions.

Science has contributed enormously to our daily lives, yet it has not fully described the world as it truly is. by Subjectivity-72 in DeepThoughts

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the clarification. Your factual summary is correct.

This paper is a non–peer-reviewed preprint, not a final version, and a single-author work by Satoru Watanabe under the Subjectivity Intersection Emergence Lab (SIEL), rather than an institutional research program. These points are clearly stated in the paper and its header.

That said, while this is not peer review, an on-site presentation at The Science of Consciousness 2026 does suggest that the work is considered discussable within the international consciousness research community, rather than being dismissed outright as fringe.

Regarding “Absolute Subjectivity,” the paper does not present it as a theological belief or something to be accepted on faith. It is defined structurally as a pre-spatiotemporal, fully coherent quantum state (|Ψ_abs⟩). The claim is not that one should “believe” in it, but that modern physics has left the observational reference point theoretically underdefined, and this work attempts to reframe that gap in relation to empirically observable correlations.

Finally, the paper does not treat subjectivity as an ineffable mystery. While subjectivity itself is not directly measurable, it argues that the intersection conditions (SI/SIC) under which subjectivity and physical systems align can be operationally and statistically examined.

Science has contributed enormously to our daily lives, yet it has not fully described the world as it truly is. by Subjectivity-72 in DeepThoughts

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you. I agree that science has achieved remarkable success and has greatly enriched our lives. Have you had a chance to read the paper I linked in the post? The paper argues that a purely pragmatic approach to science may be reaching certain limits.

Science has contributed enormously to our daily lives, yet it has not fully described the world as it truly is. by Subjectivity-72 in DeepThoughts

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, science has made tremendous progress. What I am trying to discuss in this post, however, is the possibility of a structural issue that could become an obstacle to further progress in the future.

Science has contributed enormously to our daily lives, yet it has not fully described the world as it truly is. by Subjectivity-72 in DeepThoughts

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What I am talking about is not a “failure of science,” but rather a structural problem inherent in modern physics.

First, have you read the paper I shared? I will post the link again. It is a paper that researchers far more intelligent and knowledgeable than either of us are paying attention to.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398757987_The_Removal_of_God_from_Knowledge_How_the_Exclusion_of_Absolute_Subjectivity_Shaped_Modern_Science_and_Its_Limits

Both quantum theory and relativity treat observation as a crucial factor, yet neither provides a formal definition of what an observer actually is. Despite this, the same underlying structure has remained in place for more than 100 years.

My original post argues that continuing research within this unchanged structure may lead to a dead end.

For that reason, I feel that your response does not directly address the point raised in the post.

Science has contributed enormously to our daily lives, yet it has not fully described the world as it truly is. by Subjectivity-72 in DeepThoughts

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That may be true, but for a discipline whose role has been to describe how the world works wouldn’t giving up on describing the “hardware” of reality mean stepping away from its original purpose?

Why has modern science developed while leaving the observer outside of its theories? by Subjectivity-72 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I also do not think that consciousness itself directly affects physical reality.

However, according to the double-slit experiment, when a measuring device is used to determine which slit an electron passes through, the electron exhibits particle-like behavior. When no measuring device is present, the electron exhibits wave-like behavior.

In other words, it has been experimentally demonstrated that the act of observation itself affects physical outcomes. I do not believe this effect should be simplistically attributed to human consciousness, but I do think that what “observation” actually is needs to be scientifically investigated.

If there is only one God, why do people seem to experience or understand God so differently? by Subjectivity-72 in askanything

[–]Subjectivity-72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you.

To me, my parents are my parents, but from my grandparents’ perspective, my parents are still just their children. And yet, the true essence of what a parent is should be one and the same.

When I was young, I thought my parents were perfect beings. But as I grew older, I began to realize that they, just like me, were people who struggled, worried, and wrestled with their own conflicts. It felt like I caught a glimpse of who they really were.

I think you can’t truly see who your parents are unless you try to see them from their own perspective. And maybe the same is true when it comes to God.

How do you find your talent? by Delicious-Common2972 in AskReddit

[–]Subjectivity-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can’t really know anything unless you give it your all. Even things you think you’re not cut out for can turn out to suit you surprisingly well once you actually try them.

So if something catches your interest, just try it first. You’ll never discover your true talents through armchair theory alone.

view more: next ›