Page 403 of 417 FirstFirst ... 303353393401402403404405413 ... LastLast
Results 12,061 to 12,090 of 12489

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #12061
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,763
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post

    Its perfectly fine to say that whatever is creating the VR would be MIR so far as we are concerned, however one can fundamentally not distinguish between the VR and some MIR, indeed it is meaningless to try to do so because the 2 situations are utterly indistinguishable, unless we had something to compare against.

    We can choose Mind dependently to invoke our Occam rule of thumb and thus say that therefore we should consider the MIR one to be correct. This is what we all do. But it isn't a demonstration of anything other than the way we best make sense out of things.

    ETA: there is a certain theme to all these kind of 'perverse' examples, which is logic statement above. The fact is that there are questions that cannot be answered properly unless you basically accept that reality is best defined as MDR.
    I do not know how you are comparing VR to MIR. Had you said MDR, well OK. One is created by a computer, the other by the mind.

    MDR is our interpretation of reality. Please explain...

  2. #12062
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I do not know how you are comparing VR to MIR. Had you said MDR, well OK. One is created by a computer, the other by the mind.

    MDR is our interpretation of reality. Please explain...
    in each case our MDR is our sense making of the data/stimulus we are provided with. in each there is a source for that data. on the one hand it's MIR on the other it is the computer that is creating the VR we would be plugged into.

    now yes this would just push the question back a step for then the question of an outer MIR arises. however so far as anything we describe in our experiences as being of MIR we would be mistaken.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  3. #12063
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,763
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    in each case our MDR is our sense making of the data/stimulus we are provided with. in each there is a source for that data. on the one hand it's MIR on the other it is the computer that is creating the VR we would be plugged into.

    now yes this would just push the question back a step for then the question of an outer MIR arises. however so far as anything we describe in our experiences as being of MIR we would be mistaken.
    now that I like: MIR as a source. A transformation resulting in MDR...

  4. #12064
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    now that I like: MIR as a source. A transformation resulting in MDR...
    philosophically we have never been in disagreement lol. The only issue between us lies in how much of what you can perceive one can attribute to be an accurate sense of MIR, and thus to what extent MIR actually has a play here. My view is very minimal yours is not.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  5. #12065
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    philosophically we have never been in disagreement lol. The only issue between us lies in how much of what you can perceive one can attribute to be an accurate sense of MIR, and thus to what extent MIR actually has a play here. My view is very minimal yours is not.
    So we're in the same ballpark here, but what I'm still struggling with is that you seem to be postulating that what we can/do perceive (MDR-local/personal reality) is more than likely NOT a subset of (MIR-Reality). As an example, just for discussion and analogy, let's use the EM spectrum as a backdrop. We can "see" the light of the EMS from ~400-700nM. After years of investigation and research we now understand that the EMS is not limited to what we can "see" but includes things like gamma waves and ELF radio waves and we realize that what we "see" is a very small piece of the full spectrum of the EMS. I would further say that it's a small piece of the EMS as we know it today. We may discover more varieties on both ends of the spectrum.
    So we're not postulating that gamma waves never existed before we observed them; simply that it wasn't part of our local/personal reality prior to their discovery.

    I would tend to say that this doesn't mean that our understanding of the EMS prior to the discovery of gamma waves was inaccurate...but it was incomplete. Our MDR did not, and does not, define MIR, but must always be a subset of it.... no?

    I'm not arguing or debating, just trying to understand your stance. Can you elaborate for me?

    Thanks.

  6. #12066
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,911
    It's a good example we can't see X Ray's but we have a model, ie the em spectrum that fits observations and makes predictions. We use the model but we cannot directly perceive or know about X Ray's so their Mir status is unknowable while our MDR model is useful.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  7. #12067
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by BadTrip View Post
    So we're in the same ballpark here, but what I'm still struggling with is that you seem to be postulating that what we can/do perceive (MDR-local/personal reality) is more than likely NOT a subset of (MIR-Reality). As an example, just for discussion and analogy, let's use the EM spectrum as a backdrop. We can "see" the light of the EMS from ~400-700nM. After years of investigation and research we now understand that the EMS is not limited to what we can "see" but includes things like gamma waves and ELF radio waves and we realize that what we "see" is a very small piece of the full spectrum of the EMS. I would further say that it's a small piece of the EMS as we know it today. We may discover more varieties on both ends of the spectrum.
    So we're not postulating that gamma waves never existed before we observed them; simply that it wasn't part of our local/personal reality prior to their discovery.

    I would tend to say that this doesn't mean that our understanding of the EMS prior to the discovery of gamma waves was inaccurate...but it was incomplete. Our MDR did not, and does not, define MIR, but must always be a subset of it.... no?

    I'm not arguing or debating, just trying to understand your stance. Can you elaborate for me?

    Thanks.
    Its not a precisely simple question to answer, mainly because in a very real sense this becomes contextual to me. Under normal circumstances the question of MIR never really occurs, its only something that even crosses my mind when I am talking philosophically. However once it does I am then in the realm of questions so I then have to start doing some work. I believe that the best answer to the question of what is fundamentally real is that there is something beyond myself to account for things, no matter how hard I try to question this, no answer beyond this makes better sense, obviously this is an MDR decision but I believe it to be the sensible one when asking this question. Thus to me MIR exists.

    however in trying to draw the next line between what I perceive and what is actually the case more problems arise. I see a very real case, that what my mind presents isn't what is actually real, only a representation that is in the best form for me to deal with. As a computer programmer I do this all the time when representing data to a program. So whilst there is a real basis to the information, there is no real reason to say that how I perceive that information actually matches up to the reality directly. It has its basis there but my perception of it could well be a useful simplification evolved for my brain to handle efficiently. This to me isn't just a 'perverse' niggle, its genuine likelihood because that's how systems tend to work best and evolution as we know it works towards efficiency. One might argue that why therefore do we see consistency beyond this and its a reasonable question, I dont have a full answer to this beyond my personal belief.0
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-19 at 03:08 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  8. #12068
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,763
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    philosophically we have never been in disagreement lol. The only issue between us lies in how much of what you can perceive one can attribute to be an accurate sense of MIR, and thus to what extent MIR actually has a play here. My view is very minimal yours is not.
    Seems to me, either MIR is recognized as the source, interpreted by our minds, resulting in MDR, or it is not. If it is the source, to what extent the mapping is accurate is debatable.

  9. #12069
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Seems to me, either MIR is recognized as the source, interpreted by our minds, resulting in MDR, or it is not. If it is the source, to what extent the mapping is accurate is debatable.
    that is precisely my personal view
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  10. #12070
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,911
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Seems to me, either MIR is recognized as the source, interpreted by our minds, resulting in MDR, or it is not. If it is the source, to what extent the mapping is accurate is debatable.
    Right, for me in place of debatable put unknowable,. Debatable is where arguing about how many angels can sit on a pin came from. Unknowable is a direct line to Socrates.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  11. #12071
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Right, for me in place of debatable put unknowable,. Debatable is where arguing about how many angels can sit on a pin came from. Unknowable is a direct line to Socrates.
    The use of unknowable though places in an unnecessary absolute here I think debatable is the better word. We cannot be certain in an abslute sense but given 'to know' is our own concept as well and thus depends upon our criteria the right thing to say is that we don;t have some overriding reason to agree on this. That is, whatever position you choose is going to be a personal belief.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-19 at 04:40 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  12. 2017-Apr-19, 04:48 PM

  13. #12072
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,911
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    The use of unknowable though places in an unnecessary absolute here I think debatable is the better word. We cannot be certain in an abslute sense but given 'to know' is our own concept as well and thus depends upon our criteria the right thing to say is that we don;t have some overriding reason to agree on this. That is, whatever position you choose is going to be a personal belief.
    I see that argument and indeed the brain based mind is a concept too. The mechanism of our awareness is also a model which is testable only in that there is no evidence of mind without brain. That does not stop many people believing mind is separate. Ultimately that is untestable too. Any concept that is untestable is also unknowable. But the bounds of the unknown can change of course, that is different. It's right to say unknowable is an absolute, and I still feel it underlies the objections to MDR. The link or knowledge gulf, between what we experience and what underlies all phenomena is not obvious to everybody. The link is called faith, and reality faith is powerful just as deity faith is. We are demonstrating in this long thread that arguing about faith is unlikely to get conversion, but not hopelessly unlikely. MIR is reality faith. MDR is recognising we cannot know if faith in MIR is valid.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  14. #12073
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I see that argument and indeed the brain based mind is a concept too. The mechanism of our awareness is also a model which is testable only in that there is no evidence of mind without brain. That does not stop many people believing mind is separate. Ultimately that is untestable too. Any concept that is untestable is also unknowable. But the bounds of the unknown can change of course, that is different. It's right to say unknowable is an absolute, and I still feel it underlies the objections to MDR. The link or knowledge gulf, between what we experience and what underlies all phenomena is not obvious to everybody. The link is called faith, and reality faith is powerful just as deity faith is. We are demonstrating in this long thread that arguing about faith is unlikely to get conversion, but not hopelessly unlikely. MIR is reality faith. MDR is recognising we cannot know if faith in MIR is valid.
    To an extent, but the truly important part of MDR is in recognising the role of your mind in everything that you consider to be truth, in digging down into the underlying things to discover the assumptions etc that you are making etc. Equally recognising that no matter how far you go here, you are never going to escape the trap, because your thoughts are constrained by your setup. Thus all conclusions are mind dependent even if every human being agreed

    to me the pertinent statement would be this, whilst MIR cannot be proven, its perfectly reasonable to believe it exists... however when we start talking about reality trying to conflate what we are saying to MIR is just a minefield of personal belief, there is NO reason to suggest that what is actually the case is how we perceive it to be, and reasonable cause to suspect from many lines of evidence that it actually isn't. Thus the reality we actually deal with, even before our conscious sense making is MDR
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-19 at 05:46 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  15. #12074
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,763
    Also would add that interpreting reality with our minds does not apriori disqualify all aspects modeled. We just can not be sure. Color is certainly pure MDR. Taste also. Doubt an atomic bomb blast is MDR...

  16. #12075
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,763
    Hurry before Ken shows up...

  17. #12076
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    I have to say, I find this talk of tigers frustrating.

    Let me present a different experience or experiment. A person constructs a device that allows a single photon from a very distant source to strike their eye. Once this occurs, the device stops functioning. If someone was to describe this event, what difference would their be if their perspective was MIR vs. MDR? What biases would each have? Would this description vary based on repetitions by various people of differing or mixed opinions were collected and subjected to statistics? What biases would that have or introduce?
    Those would be the scientific questions to ask, yes. And no doubt these kinds of questions were central to the formulation of the scientific method, with its tight focus on "objective" outcomes. The concept of objectivity is crucial to science, it's a defining feature of science that it must deal in outcomes that are reproducible and objective, at least at some level of idealization, and we had to figure out what kinds of outcomes that includes, and what it doesn't include. But a key point of this thread is twofold:
    1) what we call objective requires a concept of similar minds-- we cannot say that all minds agree on what is objective, only that a significant enough majority to make the concept useful, and
    2) just because similar minds reach similar conclusions does not lead to a correct logical inference that the resulting consensus is mind independent.

    The purpose of realizing these two points is that it frees us up to look at everything we perceive around us as a kind of reflection of ourselves, rather than as something going on "with our without us." Certainly we can take ourselves out of the situation, and test that we would describe in the same ways the events that occur without our interactions with those events, but we can never take out the way we visualize, conceive, and talk about those events. Ergo, the whole idea of what is "really happening" in any situation is always dependent on our minds, in terms of how we think and perceive. What's really amazing is how easily we not only forget this, but actively fight against recognizing it.

  18. #12077
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Hurry before Ken shows up...
    LOL nice.

  19. #12078
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    10,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Those would be the scientific questions to ask, yes. And no doubt these kinds of questions were central to the formulation of the scientific method, with its tight focus on "objective" outcomes. The concept of objectivity is crucial to science, it's a defining feature of science that it must deal in outcomes that are reproducible and objective, at least at some level of idealization, and we had to figure out what kinds of outcomes that includes, and what it doesn't include. But a key point of this thread is twofold:
    1) what we call objective requires a concept of similar minds-- we cannot say that all minds agree on what is objective, only that a significant enough majority to make the concept useful, and
    2) just because similar minds reach similar conclusions does not lead to a correct logical inference that the resulting consensus is mind independent.

    The purpose of realizing these two points is that it frees us up to look at everything we perceive around us as a kind of reflection of ourselves, rather than as something going on "with our without us." Certainly we can take ourselves out of the situation, and test that we would describe in the same ways the events that occur without our interactions with those events, but we can never take out the way we visualize, conceive, and talk about those events. Ergo, the whole idea of what is "really happening" in any situation is always dependent on our minds, in terms of how we think and perceive. What's really amazing is how easily we not only forget this, but actively fight against recognizing it.
    I should bail at at this point. I am not going to grok this concept.

    How are you defining "similar mind"?
    Solfe, Dominus Maris Pavos.

  20. #12079
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,639
    Quote Originally Posted by BadTrip View Post
    As an example, just for discussion and analogy, let's use the EM spectrum as a backdrop. We can "see" the light of the EMS from ~400-700nM. After years of investigation and research we now understand that the EMS is not limited to what we can "see" but includes things like gamma waves and ELF radio waves and we realize that what we "see" is a very small piece of the full spectrum of the EMS. I would further say that it's a small piece of the EMS as we know it today. We may discover more varieties on both ends of the spectrum.
    So we're not postulating that gamma waves never existed before we observed them; simply that it wasn't part of our local/personal reality prior to their discovery.
    Examples are very powerful, and this is an excellent one, so let's take it to the limit and really understand the difference between MDR and MIR, from the scientific perspective. You are seeing the visible spectrum as part of MDR, since we can perceive it directly, and presumably you then argue that the rest of the spectrum is MIR, because we don't perceive it but we have been able to figure out that it is there anyway. So let's examine your words more closely and see if this picture you are advocating holds up to testing. You said that the part of the spectrum we don't directly perceive is comprised of gamma and ELF radio "waves". So are those "waves" part of that MIR, or the MDR of your way of thinking about them? Perhaps you can already tell that it will never work for you to hold that these "waves" you talk about are MIR, but we can follow the physics lesson all the same.

    It starts with the long-standing debate about the nature of light, which at one point was carried on between Newton, who figured light should be particles that were acted on by forces like other particles are, and Huygens, who thought light should be a wave like sound waves. Both could explain refraction of light in a prism, but Newton's model required there to be forces from the glass that sped up the particles of light as they entered the glass, and Huygens' model required that light should slow down in glass. No one could measure the speed of light accurately, so the debate raged on, with most people believing Newton because, well, he was Newton. So the common MDR held that light was particles.

    However, half a century after the deaths of both Newton and Huygens, it did become possible to measure the speed of light in glass, and an experiment by Fizeau was able to determine that light slowed down in glass, vindicating Huygens' model. So that was it-- light was a wave, this is how it showed up in the MDR of every physicist for some 50 years.

    Then along came Einstein's Nobel prize on the photoelectric effect (not relativity, by the way), which was widely interpreted (unnecessarily, as it happens) as evidence that light really was made of particles after all. Other observations later verified that light should be described as being made of particles that follow the rules of waves, and "wave/particle duality" entered our MDR. Who knows what we will think light is in 1000 years from now!

    So what this story should make eminently clear is that anything we say that "is real" can always be demonstrated to be our MDR. When we expanded the spectrum from visible to include other types of invisible rays, we did not expand from an MDR to an MIR, we merely expanded our MDR. And along the way, we also radically altered our MDR! None of which should surprise us-- the building of an MDR is what science is all about.
    Our MDR did not, and does not, define MIR, but must always be a subset of it.... no?
    The problem with thinking of the MDR as a subset of MIR is that there's no science to it. The MDR expands and changes, but that's all that happens in science, there's never anything "larger than" the MDR, other than more MDR. There never comes a time when you can say "ah, now that's the MIR", because what you are talking about can always be demonstrated to be your MDR, as has been done so many times in this thread. None of this means you cannot choose to believe there is an MIR, it just means you can't say anything about it, or define any qualities or attributes of it, or do any tests on it, because as soon as you do any of those things, there I'll be to show you why you are talking about your MDR, just like Newton's particles of light or Huygens' light waves. So that's why I don't deny the existence of MIR, but then I also don't deny the existence of omnipotent deities. I merely demonstrate why their intersection with scientific thinking is null.

  21. #12080
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    How are you defining "similar mind"?
    It is not I who define this concept, it is the scientific mainstream that must do it, and it must maintain the meaning of "similar mind" constantly. This is what peer review is all about, what evolution vs. creationism is all about, and climate change vs. Chinese hoaxes. You can never use the concept of objectivity until you can restrict to similar minds, we've seen all too clearly what happens when that requirement is removed.

  22. #12081
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Also would add that interpreting reality with our minds does not apriori disqualify all aspects modeled. We just can not be sure. Color is certainly pure MDR. Taste also. Doubt an atomic bomb blast is MDR...
    ok I agree that something has happened to give rise to the event we experience as an atomic explosion. Likewise however, something has happened to give rise to our experience of visoin, taste etc. The thing is, that even though this is the case, the way this is represented to us may actually differ in very important respects to what has happened in MIR, thus if someone was setup differently we both might be observing a real event, but at the same time perceive and make sense of it differently.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  23. #12082
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    ...... You said that the part of the spectrum we don't directly perceive is comprised of gamma and ELF radio "waves". So are those "waves" part of that MIR, or the MDR of your way of thinking about them? Perhaps you can already tell that it will never work for you to hold that these "waves" you talk about are MIR, but we can follow the physics lesson all the same....
    I'm not sure I completely agree with you that the "waves" might not actually be a piece of the MIR.... but yes, yes indeed I do see your point regarding whether those "waves" are part of the MIR versus my MDR way of thinking about them. ......yes... well put.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    .... Who knows what we will think light is in 1000 years from now!.....
    Agreed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    .... So what this story should make eminently clear is that anything we say that "is real" can always be demonstrated to be our MDR...
    Yes, agreed. That's what I said when I stated that MDR must always be a subset of MIR.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    .... When we expanded the spectrum from visible to include other types of invisible rays, we did not expand from an MDR to an MIR, we merely expanded our MDR. And along the way, we also radically altered our MDR! None of which should surprise us-- the building of an MDR is what science is all about...
    Agreed!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    .... The problem with thinking of the MDR as a subset of MIR is that there's no science to it. The MDR expands and changes, but that's all that happens in science, there's never anything "larger than" the MDR, other than more MDR. There never comes a time when you can say "ah, now that's the MIR", because what you are talking about can always be demonstrated to be your MDR, as has been done so many times in this thread....
    MDR is constrained by our own consciousness...absolutely agreed. MIR is not constrained by our own consciousness. Since science is our own creation, and indeed is constantly updated, clarified, refined, ...yes then, certainly there is no science in MIR....[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    .... None of this means you cannot choose to believe there is an MIR, it just means you can't say anything about it, or define any qualities or attributes of it, or do any tests on it, because as soon as you do any of those things, there I'll be to show you why you are talking about your MDR, just like Newton's particles of light or Huygens' light waves. So that's why I don't deny the existence of MIR, but then I also don't deny the existence of omnipotent deities. I merely demonstrate why their intersection with scientific thinking is null.
    Somehow... I feel really odd saying this.... ....but I think I..... I think I might....... *sigh* ..... I think I agree with you Ken.

    Perhaps I have been struggling with getting beyond preconceived notions and biases from prior discussions and debates.... or perhaps I was simply not accurately perceiving your statements/stances.

    I reserve the right to change my mind on this.....

    Oh man.... someone get me a ginger ale.

  24. #12083
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,639
    Quote Originally Posted by BadTrip View Post
    Perhaps I have been struggling with getting beyond preconceived notions and biases from prior discussions and debates.... or perhaps I was simply not accurately perceiving your statements/stances.
    What I find amazing, and somewhat liberating, about this perspective is that I can walk around and look at my environment and marvel at how naturally I assume my way of thinking about what I perceive is "what is really happening," yet even if there is meaning in what "actually is", it could be so vastly different from what I think. Ultimately, it's a recognition of extreme naivete. Not in some morbid "Matrix" sense, even that is easy to get our heads around in comparison to what I'm talking about, I mean more like what an ant crawling on a leaf is understanding about its environment. But even more profound, in my view, is the recognition that the issue is not how much less than "what is real" is our MDR, but rather, the MDR is the very epitome of what we mean by "what is real", so there is no meaning to the concept of reality that goes beyond how we perceive it and think about it. There's no point in even inventing a word for the MIR version of reality because we never use it at all, it just isn't what we mean by reality. It's not what a psychiatrist means when dealing with a schizophrenic patient, it's not what a physicist means when studying laws of nature, it's not what an artist means when they say "life imitates art", and it certainly isn't what everyday people mean when they say "get real," all those meanings are MDR. So it's not that our minds create reality, it's that our minds decide what is real.

  25. #12084
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    10,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    It is not I who define this concept, it is the scientific mainstream that must do it, and it must maintain the meaning of "similar mind" constantly. This is what peer review is all about, what evolution vs. creationism is all about, and climate change vs. Chinese hoaxes. You can never use the concept of objectivity until you can restrict to similar minds, we've seen all too clearly what happens when that requirement is removed.
    Ah, you are using that term in a way that I absolutely wouldn't conceive of. I was thinking of autism and such plus the alternative means of cognition and communication. I was slightly alarmed by what I thought the phrase meant. Glad to be wrong in this case.
    Solfe, Dominus Maris Pavos.

  26. #12085
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    Ah, you are using that term in a way that I absolutely wouldn't conceive of. I was thinking of autism and such plus the alternative means of cognition and communication. I was slightly alarmed by what I thought the phrase meant. Glad to be wrong in this case.
    I'm not sure what the source of alarm is there, because the meaning does indeed extend to autism and alternative cognition. I don't devalue differences in minds, I'm simply saying that a person who is not severely autistic may have a very different idea about "what reality is" than someone who is severely autistic. Of course, we view our way of looking at reality as "the right one", but this is based solely on the fact that it is our perspective, coupled with the fact that it is more functional in the ways we want it to be. So when we talk about "objective reality", we must set aside the perspective of the autistic person, or it wouldn't seem so "objective" after all. This is a necessity for using the concept of objective reality, a concept that science uses all the time, but it does not imply that what we mean by "objective reality" is "what is really happening", and the perceptions of the autistic person are some kind of "delusion". Even someone who is certifiably insane has some kind of dysfunctional view of reality, and it doesn't work for what we want the reality concept to be, yet there are cases where people with significant sanity issues have made spectacular breakthroughs in the understanding of reality for the rest of us. So that's what I mean about the complex interplay between our working operational definition of "objective reality" and the "similar minds" it requires, and the fact that this is all MDR.

    But yes, where you see this most acutely and most important for society and education is when you have a room full of people, and half of them think the universe is about 14 billion years old, and the other half think it is some 6000 years old. Those are very different realities, and the scientific thinkers are confident that their approach is going to make the correct predictions going forward, whereas the other group is likely kidding themselves if they think that, but that second group is still free to say that making predictions is not what is important to them and is not the "right way" to say what is "really true." This is why when Bill Nye asked a creationist if there was any scientific finding or experiment that could ever be capable of refuting that creationist's belief, the creationist said no, because he already knew the truth-- so any scientific discovery to the contrary would have to be some kind of mistake! You just can't get a more obvious example of the MDR concept than that, but I'm more interested in how MDR manifests itself even in science.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Apr-20 at 06:05 PM.

  27. #12086
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    What I find amazing, and somewhat liberating, about this perspective is that I can walk around and look at my environment and marvel at how naturally I assume my way of thinking about what I perceive is "what is really happening," yet even if there is meaning in what "actually is", it could be so vastly different from what I think.
    That I can not follow. I can follow that when hearing a melody, you might be charmed by it, while it does not appeal to me. If you walk along the sidewalk and see a frontal collision, do not tell me for someone else it is not happening. Or say you get mugged. Both actually are.

  28. #12087
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    That I can not follow. I can follow that when hearing a melody, you might be charmed by it, while it does not appeal to me. If you walk along the sidewalk and see a frontal collision, do not tell me for someone else it is not happening. Or say you get mugged. Both actually are.
    The point you are still kind of missing, is that whether or not there is an MIR in this is rather irrelevant. Yes given MIR then these things are in fact taking place in MIR in whatever way the actuality is. However the important and relevant bit, is how we percieve it and thus the sense we make out of it. This is what we perceive as reality and thus how in practice we will always apply the concept/word. The point is that no matter what is the truth about how closely what we perceive matches up to MIR or indeed how different, the important bit doesn't change one iota, the important bit is always anthrocentric in that reality as we know it is how we perceive it to be.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-20 at 07:50 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  29. #12088
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    The point you are still kind of missing, is that whether or not there is an MIR in this is rather irrelevant. Yes given MIR then these things are in fact taking place in MIR in whatever way the actuality is. However the important and relevant bit, is how we percieve it and thus the sense we make out of it. This is what we perceive as reality and thus how in practice we will always apply the concept/word. The point is that no matter what is the truth about how closely what we perceive matches up to MIR or indeed how different, the important bit doesn't change one iota, the important bit is always anthrocentric in that reality as we know it is how we perceive it to be.
    to add to this, something i have said before. if MIR was wildly different but we were unable to perceive this directly or indirectly for whatever reason then nothing would be different to us than if MIR was basically identical. We would be able to make sense in precisely the same way because the important thing is not how MIR actually is. but how it is presented to our awareness. that is what we are actually making sense of when it gets down to it.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  30. #12089
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,763
    You say "perceive it". That is what I am talking about. ''It", say the tiger or bomb explosion is there, regardless of the art of perception.

  31. #12090
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    You say "perceive it". That is what I am talking about. ''It", say the tiger or bomb explosion is there, regardless of the art of perception.
    I don;t argue with the existence pf MIR, I argue simply with the relevance of that in any practical sense, except in saying that there is something that serves as a source for all the relevant stuff.

    The moment you realise that what its actual nature is doesn't matter at all, this becomes the case.

    We can speculate over the logic of assuming there might be any major differences, and equally about assuming that there are not. However this is just philosophical musing along the same lines as arguing the existence of an unrevealed deity.


    What pops out at the end of all this is that regardless how close your MDR matches up to MIR, reality in a practical meaningful sense can always be shown to be an MDR. The only important role that MIR plays here, is in providing a point of closure for your MDR, serving as justification for some of the postulates you apply to your logic in making sense out of things. But this is still all MDR.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Apr-21 at 07:43 AM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •