Page 433 of 441 FirstFirst ... 333383423431432433434435 ... LastLast
Results 12,961 to 12,990 of 13203

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #12961
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Well I dunno 'bout you, but my mind still creates models when (presumably) all my 'sensorial inputs' are asleep! They aren't always consistent though, but they seem to make sense when I'm in that state .. but not so much when I come out of it though.

    So, yes and no .. not really.
    I'm in that business actually, I try hard to remove all the external inputs and we have found not only that the mind is still there but it turns inward to the interoceptive system and achieves a reset. This reset is very significant in anxious states. There is an hypothesis about anxious states being a somatic error between the interoceptive model and the exteroceptive model (the MDR) causing the usefulness of the latter to diminish in a very unhealthy way. That inner model is unconscious but makes itself prominent when we feel under threat. So it's a nuisance when it's the wrong model under self test. If that makes sense.
    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

  2. #12962
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I'm in that business actually, I try hard to remove all the external inputs and we have found not only that the mind is still there but it turns inward to the interoceptive system and achieves a reset. This reset is very significant in anxious states. There is an hypothesis about anxious states being a somatic error between the interoceptive model and the exteroceptive model (the MDR) causing the usefulness of the latter to diminish in a very unhealthy way. That inner model is unconscious but makes itself prominent when we feel under threat. So it's a nuisance when it's the wrong model under self test. If that makes sense.
    You might be interested in this video which I came across recently..

    All of its really interesting .. but check out what Carlos Schenck has to say about parasomnia at the 46:30 mark.

  3. #12963
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    Great. What is the alternative then, briefly stated?

  4. #12964
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Great. What is the alternative then, briefly stated?
    Using our minds and memory we make predictive models and languages from observations and we can test those to form our knowledge of our reality while we cannot know the nature of the source of the phenomena we observe because our models are all in mind. We tend to form beliefs about sources but we cannot test beliefs, only models.
    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

  5. #12965
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Using our minds and memory we make predictive models and languages from observations and we can test those to form our knowledge of our reality while we cannot know the nature of the source of the phenomena we observe because our models are all in mind. We tend to form beliefs about sources but we cannot test beliefs, only models.
    You just said "nature of the source of the phenomena". That is what I am talking about.

  6. #12966
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    You just said "nature of the source of the phenomena". That is what I am talking about.
    you left "cannot know" out but I think your position is you can know?
    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. #12967
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    I am talking about acknowledging there is a source.

  8. #12968
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I am talking about acknowledging there is a source.
    That sounds like the thin end of a wedge.

    MDR acknowledges phenomena and the experience of being and the many mind models we make which we call reality but remain agnostic (can't know) about the source or indeed if there has to be a source.

    Most people believe there is a source with various varieties of MIR but then they may not have considered anything past the belief that reality is independent of what they experience.

    Science is about interpretation prediction and analysis of observations and never has to acknowledge, in the way you mean, that there is a known source.

    Again I have to emphasise the difference between belief and knowledge.

    I suppose you may be retreating into "there must be a source" which is less dogmatic than "I kick the rock" but as has been said many times, "there must be a source" is not testable within science which is mind based.
    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

  9. #12969
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    How could there possibly be no source? Figment of the mind? Not serously?

  10. #12970
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    How could there possibly be no source? Figment of the mind? Not serously?
    For the last time nobody said there is no source, that would also be untestable, we say we cannot know the source we can only know our models and their performance in tests.
    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. #12971
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    For the last time: I am saying there must be a source.

  12. #12972
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    That sounds like the thin end of a wedge.

    MDR acknowledges phenomena and the experience of being and the many mind models we make which we call reality but remain agnostic (can't know) about the source or indeed if there has to be a source.

    Most people believe there is a source with various varieties of MIR but then they may not have considered anything past the belief that reality is independent of what they experience.

    Science is about interpretation prediction and analysis of observations and never has to acknowledge, in the way you mean, that there is a known source.

    Again I have to emphasise the difference between belief and knowledge.

    I suppose you may be retreating into "there must be a source" which is less dogmatic than "I kick the rock" but as has been said many times, "there must be a source" is not testable within science which is mind based.
    Notice that whenever the conversation focus is shifted from 'MDR hypothesis' to 'MDR acknowledges', it then devolves into meaningless debates about 'sources', (and presumably 'sinks'), which is no different from the never ending philosophically useless debate about the existence of 'causes and effects'?

    Why bother at all with 'MDR acknowledges' when the MDR hypothesis stands so firmly on its own merits (ie: science)?

  13. #12973
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Notice that whenever the conversation focus is shifted from 'MDR hypothesis' to 'MDR acknowledges', it then devolves into meaningless debates about 'sources', (and presumably 'sinks'), which is no different from the never ending philosophically useless debate about the existence of 'causes and effects'?

    Why bother at all with 'MDR acknowledges' when the MDR hypothesis stands so firmly on its own merits (ie: science)?
    Fair point but that word acknowledge kind of means adds to knowledge. in a way,
    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. #12974
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    @Ken G: (if you're still out there)

    It took me a while to consider your response to the MIR hypothesis .. from your post #12953 (which summarises the essence of your MIR hypothesis objection):
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfSim
    v) in the MIR hypothesis, an assumption is not the same as a belief. Assumptions are held ’true’ provisionally (conditionally), whereas beliefs are held ‘true’ a-priori.
    And there's the rub, because what you actually see, over and over in this thread, is the pretense that the assumption is conditional, when in fact it is clearly held true a priori. Need I quote mine? Now you may counter that you are not responsible for the people for whom MIR is indeed a belief, when for you it is a provisional assumption. But that's the rest of what I'm arguing-- when you actually put that provision to the test, it always has to retreat until there is nothing left of it. No aspect of the model survives that is truly mind independent, the provision is tacked on entirely needlessly and it performs no function or service that is any different from leaving out whatever you are choosing not to treat.
    (My emboldenment and underline).
    I think this is where the objection breaks down (I think it came up way back also .. under the chapter raising accusations of philosophical 'absolutism'?)

    See the distinction of: 'Assumptions are held ’true’ provisionally (conditionally)', is made by virtue of its surrounding context, ie: the stated hypothesis. An hypothesis in science is deliberately worded as being tentative and provisional because it hasn't yet been tested. If it had been hidden, then I might agree with what you say, however, in this case, it was stated up front.

    The dismissal on the basis of testing the assumptions 'provisional-ness' and concluding it as being yet another a priori belief, sets off the warning bells that the objection may be motivated (perhaps) by the intrusion of the underlying solipsistic basis of the MDR hypothesis?

    How many hypothesis-under-test are there in science where at any given moment, as far as the future is concerned, 'nothing is written'?
    (The 'Lawrence of Arabia' movie quote is somewhat deliberate here).

    I think the dismissal of 'it always has to retreat' might also be at odds with the notion that what goes into any given model, simply boils down to the scientist's desired focus (free-will)?

    The MDR hypothesis I support, is one which would not use Solipsistic principles as the sole basis for eliminating the provisionality of a tentatively held testable MIR notion ... (which funnily enough, also undermines my own stance that models are not entirely up to the free-will choices pertaining to the modeller's study focus).

    There's inconsistency here(?)

  15. #12975
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    you left "cannot know" out but I think your position is you can know?
    No, of course not. Just that there is a source.
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2019-Jul-22 at 09:42 AM.

  16. #12976
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    For the last time: I am saying there must be a source.
    You are making a model there.

  17. #12977
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    An hypothesis in science is deliberately worded as being tentative and provisional because it hasn't yet been tested. If it had been hidden, then I might agree with what you say, however, in this case, it was stated up front.
    The issue is, are you actually testing it. The hypothesis you stated had two components, one that is testable, one that is never tested. The testable part is that there are consistencies in our perceptions, and there are differences. The untestable part is that the consistencies are not due to us, and the differences are due to us. Now how are you going to test that part?

    I think the dismissal of 'it always has to retreat' might also be at odds with the notion that what goes into any given model, simply boils down to the scientist's desired focus (free-will)?
    The "retreating" that I'm talking about is something that is in evidence in each actual example. All you have to do is give an example of how you are testing that hypothesis, and I can show you where the "retreat of the MIR part" occurs. If you think that hypothesis is being tested, then give as complete an example as you can, and we'll see.
    The MDR hypothesis I support, is one which would not use Solipsistic principles as the sole basis for eliminating the provisionality of a tentatively held testable MIR notion ... (which funnily enough, also undermines my own stance that models are not entirely up to the free-will choices pertaining to the modeller's study focus).
    In what you said, it's not the provisonality that is the issue, it is the "testable" claim. That's what doesn't hold up. The provisionality doesn't hold up for the way some people apply the "MIR" model (gzhpcu once said that he could not imagine any outcome where he would abandon his MIR belief. If a test cast doubt on it, he would merely doubt the experiment, not the MIR. Now you might not feel that way, so it might actually be provisional for you. But that's just more proof that even the entire notion of an "MIR" is actually mind dependent. The idea can be seen to mean something different for each person who creates that model.

  18. #12978
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    You are making a model there.
    What alternative is there? Figment of the mind? Surely not...

  19. #12979
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    What alternative is there? Figment of the mind? Surely not...
    Here are the options:
    1) there is a source outside of us that has nothing to do with us (which is a common but an untestable belief, as no one has suggested any way to test this other than argument by incredulity)
    2) it is all a figment of our imagination (doesn't test well)
    3) how we think about reality will always be a part of our reality, inseparable from everything we say about reality and every model we create, including the untestable MIR belief (this is essentially the MDR hypothesis, and it tests very well)
    4) none of the above (nothing to test there at present, though alternative hypotheses are always welcome)

    A key point I have stressed is that not only is #3 the sole option that actually tests well, it is also the only one that offers promise for helping us understand reality better (which is why it should not be mistaken for solipsism, which is normally regarded as scientifically sterile). When we eventually understand better how we think, we will understand better the way we think about reality and how that affects the conclusions we are able to reach about reality. That will be a very advanced version of a theory of physics, one that need not separate the subject of the theory from the object of the theory, an artificial distinction that even the theories we have right now tell us is artificial.

  20. #12980
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Here are the options:
    1) there is a source outside of us that has nothing to do with us (which is a common but an untestable belief, as no one has suggested any way to test this other than argument by incredulity)
    2) it is all a figment of our imagination (doesn't test well)
    3) how we think about reality will always be a part of our reality, inseparable from everything we say about reality and every model we create, including the untestable MIR belief (this is essentially the MDR hypothesis, and it tests very well)
    4) none of the above (nothing to test there at present, though alternative hypotheses are always welcome)

    A key point I have stressed is that not only is #3 the sole option that actually tests well, it is also the only one that offers promise for helping us understand reality better (which is why it should not be mistaken for solipsism, which is normally regarded as scientifically sterile). When we eventually understand better how we think, we will understand better the way we think about reality and how that affects the conclusions we are able to reach about reality. That will be a very advanced version of a theory of physics, one that need not separate the subject of the theory from the object of the theory, an artificial distinction that even the theories we have right now tell us is artificial.
    Comment to your points:
    1) If there is a source outside of us but if we are not part of it how can we interface with it? If there is a MIR, then we must be part of it. The portion we detect is limited by our senses and ability to model it.
    2) can not be considered. Does not even define what "we" is.
    3) We create mind models of what we sense. Yes, this forms our model of reality, which is an evolving model. These are limited to what our sensory organs can deliver to our brain, and the brain to our mind.

    Could you please define the term "Reality", as you use it in context with your arguments?

  21. #12981
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The issue is, are you actually testing it. The hypothesis you stated had two components, one that is testable, one that is never tested. The testable part is that there are consistencies in our perceptions, and there are differences. The untestable part is that the consistencies are not due to us, and the differences are due to us. Now how are you going to test that part?
    In my post of the MIR hypothesis here, the preamble acknowledges upfront that it is still a mind concept (regardless of the rather nonsensical label of Mind Independent Reality):
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfSim
    Clearly we cannot cite a test which doesn't involve concepts, models, descriptions, perceptions, language (meanings) which are independent of human minds because it is the only tool we have to process ‘experiences’.
    Now I suspect we are about to go over old ground (so readers please remember that I fully support the MDR hypothesis) but MIR proponents point to the incompleteness of any and all models, and their innate measurement inaccuracies in 'truly' portraying the 'actual' MIR, as being the 'source' of the 'differences' you refer to above. (Way back in this thread we then got into to 'map' model vs the 'actual' territory it represents side-discussion, IIRC?).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G
    The "retreating" that I'm talking about is something that is in evidence in each actual example. All you have to do is give an example of how you are testing that hypothesis, and I can show you where the "retreat of the MIR part" occurs. If you think that hypothesis is being tested, then give as complete an example as you can, and we'll see.
    Ok .. (thanks). I also think you already did that in the (historical) 'map vs the actual territory it portrays' example(?) Both can be shown as displaying evidence of the mind's involvement .. and the mind's influence not being limited to only 'maps' as the sole domain of the mind's modelling 'fingerprints'(?) Thus, true mind independence is not really under test ... but that's ok, when the mind dependence in the stated MIR hypothesis, is no longer a hidden assumption, (covered up, but eventually being revealed under the guise of being held as logically 'true'). At least its explicitly stated there .. upfront .. in the MIR hypothesis.

    I guess we're just refreshing the thread history again here, whilst highlighting the inconsistencies of the MIR mind model/belief(?)
    I don't think I have sufficient energy to undergo 'the test' again by citing another example .. (I'm more than familiar with the tedious-ness of that part of it) ..

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G
    In what you said, it's not the provisonality that is the issue, it is the "testable" claim. That's what doesn't hold up. The provisionality doesn't hold up for the way some people apply the "MIR" model (gzhpcu once said that he could not imagine any outcome where he would abandon his MIR belief. If a test cast doubt on it, he would merely doubt the experiment, not the MIR.
    Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G
    Now you might not feel that way, so it might actually be provisional for you. But that's just more proof that even the entire notion of an "MIR" is actually mind dependent. The idea can be seen to mean something different for each person who creates that model.
    Yep .. fortunately, I don't hold those 'feelings' about provisionality ... but I've found many other self-acclaimed 'scientifically oriented' thinkers, unfortunately do.

    As an aside, in the last few years (over which this thread was relatively inactive with updates), I have attempted to reveal the salient aspects of the MDR hypothesis with other scientific thinkers.

    I think I can confidently report a complete and utter failure .. (I mean, even moderators mock it), which raises the issue of what really is its utility value, other than by way of affording the sense of personal clarity for those who 'get it'?

    I'm beginnning to think it falls subject to the same issues about what scientific 'objectivity' means .. Ie: it seems to require a very unique understanding/background experience of many diverse concepts that most seem unwilling to grasp(?)

  22. #12982
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Comment to your points:
    1) If there is a source outside of us but if we are not part of it how can we interface with it? If there is a MIR, then we must be part of it.
    Exactly the problem that MIR believers ignore. For example, the believer in an untested MIR will invariably say that the universe which existed without us in it had nothing to do with us. This of course must ignore our process of carrying out and interpreting observations of said universe, which does have us in it, obviously. This is always the problem with MIR belief, you invariably have to ignore the data that is right in front of you in order to choose to believe in it. It's similar to the belief that any given religious text is the word of an almighty, a choice of belief that ignores the process of how the religious text was actually written and decided to be included. The MIR believer also does that same thing, when they say the universe before we were in it had nothing to do with us, ignoring how our models were created and tested and how that process involved the way we think and perceive at every turn.
    3) We create mind models of what we sense.
    It's an interesting choice of words, that the model is of "what we sense." That can mean two totally different things, one which espouses MIR belief, and another which merely sticks to what is in evidence. We make models, and we use our senses to test those models, so the models are of "what we sense" in the sense that the models are intended to connect with and explain what we sense. But no part of that process requires there be some "source" of what we sense, beyond another model. When we say there is a source of our senses, we are making a model that works to some degree and breaks down when pushed too hard. Quantum mechanics is a wonderful place for finding those breakdowns, which is why you feel you need to discount quantum phenomena from your MIR belief system. Which is a classic example of the MDR hypothesis at work-- different minds will either discount quantum phenomena as not part of "reality", or will embrace it as the only reality (the latter being typical of theoretical physicists, for example).

    Could you please define the term "Reality", as you use it in context with your arguments?
    Reality is a class of models, a bunch of different ways of thinking that different people use to mean different things in different situations. You can find it in any dictionary. Indeed, whenever I use words, I take the common meanings, but I also recognize where those meanings come from: us. What's more, I recognize what many do not-- these words are intentionally vague, so they can be like nets that pull in many things in many contexts. The problem with specific meanings is they cannot be general enough to be included in common conversation, because different people have different experiences and relate to the same words in very different ways. I could give you any number of examples of the word "reality" being taken to mean quite different things. We really should stop being so naive as to think the universe just hands us stuff, like "reality", and all we do is tack labels onto it. If one studies the actual process of language generation, one easily sees it works nothing like that.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Jul-28 at 02:00 PM.

  23. #12983
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    In my post of the MIR hypothesis here, the preamble acknowledges upfront that it is still a mind concept (regardless of the rather nonsensical label of Mind Independent Reality):
    Then we are in perfect agreement-- I regard the MIR as just another model, a part of MDR building. That's why I compared it to the physicist's penchant for ignoring friction and air resistance when studying gravity, an approach that allowed Galileo to make revolutionary discoveries. It's not that Galileo actually thought there was not air resistance, it's that he thought he could think more clearly and simply if he simply minimized its effects. This is how physics also works in regard to our role in thinking about what we perceive-- we expressly attempt to minimize our role at every turn, not because we don't think we have a role, but because we think we can reach conclusions more simply and clearly if we try to leave out that difficult part as much as we can. Yet somewhere along the line in that process, we forgot it was an idealization, an artificial distinction between the subject and object. All we can do is minimize its effects, but we never benefit by pretending the effects are really not there, just like we are never served by imagining there is no such thing as air resistance. The difference is, you can really look for vacuums that have essentially no air, but you can never find a situation where there is not a mind having an effect.

    But if you are talking about MIR in the context of asking what can we learn about our situation by minimizing the role of the mind, looking for situations where there is an extreme level of agreement among similar thinking people (i.e., leave out the 5% or so of irrational thinkers who believe we never landed on the Moon, and maybe even leave out those who think the truth can be adjudicated by some pre-existing ideology which unfortunately brings that number up quite a bit), and building models of the object that imagine those objects are "sources" of our perceptions, then I completely agree-- this is the common model, it has served us well. It serves us like imagining the Earth is a sphere, even when we know it isn't, or imagining that the Earth has a surface, even when we know it doesn't in any absolute sense.
    Thus, true mind independence is not really under test ... but that's ok, when the mind dependence in the stated MIR hypothesis, is no longer a hidden assumption, (covered up, but eventually being revealed under the guise of being held as logically 'true'). At least its explicitly stated there .. upfront .. in the MIR hypothesis.
    I agree that hiddenness is a key issue, it is important to clearly identify what simlifying assumptions are in play. A classic example would be on a physics test involving an inclined plane, you can count on the question to say that the plane is to be regarded as frictionless, you are never expected to simply believe that planes are inherently frictionless. So when dealing with the MIR assumption, one can simply say "I am choosing to model reality as something that is a source of my perceptions, where that source exists independently of my perceptions." That's fine, there's no problem in making a concrete assumption to try to move forward, the problem comes in hiding the tracks of the assumptions. That's where people start to take on irrational stances, as if they knew the nature of things rather than simply adopting some provisional assumption that they intend to explore where it breaks down. Then we encounter phenomena like entanglement and spooky action at a distance, and Einstein cries foul because it doesn't seem like reality could include that-- yet it does all the same.
    As an aside, in the last few years (over which this thread was relatively inactive with updates), I have attempted to reveal the salient aspects of the MDR hypothesis with other scientific thinkers.
    That's interesting, I wonder how you fared. I would not be surprised if you encountered some of the most unscientific responses that you've ever seen coming from scientific thinkers, this tends to be something of a blind spot. Which is unfortunate, because I would argue that this cuts to the very core of what science is and what it isn't, but scientists cannot always be counted on to understand that distinction any more than religious people can be counted on to understand what religion is. When you've carried out a procedure long enough, you tend to lose sight of all the moving parts out of simple familiarity.
    I think I can confidently report a complete and utter failure .. (I mean, even moderators mock it), which raises the issue of what really is its utility value, other than by way of affording the sense of personal clarity for those who 'get it'?
    The core problem is our complete lack of understanding of what we are actually doing when we think and perceive. Since we don't understand what we are doing, we simply assume we are not doing anything at all. That's all too common-- the aspects we don't know how to treat we simply dodge, and hope we can find situations where they don't matter (it's air resistance, again). But in the future when there are advances in understanding how we think and perceive, the point will be much easier to see, and its value will be more timely. We are simply too soon, like when Aristarchus said the planets orbited the Sun not the Earth. It just wasn't a view that anyone was ready to take advantage of, so it got no traction, even though there was plenty of evidence even before the telescope (indeed Tycho Brahe figured it out with nothing but his eyes).
    I'm beginnning to think it falls subject to the same issues about what scientific 'objectivity' means .. Ie: it seems to require a very unique understanding/background experience of many diverse concepts that most seem unwilling to grasp(?)
    Yes exactly, "objectivity" is the key concept. This is exactly why even many scientists have a problem with the MDR idea-- the concepts of objectivity and empiricism are so central to science that some scientists feel threatened to even broach the topic. But what is even closer to the core of science than objectivity is the desire to know the truth even when it is inconvenient. A scientist needs to know that objectivity isn't a thing, it is a goal-- it is an approach that says try as hard as you can to minimize the role of the scientist, but it never says the scientist plays no role. Galileo never got rid of friction when we rolled objects down inclined planes, and he never pretended that he did, he merely minimized its importance enough to make progress in understanding the processes that didn't involve it.

  24. #12984
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    And what if we just say we are a tiny part of a larger existence which we model into MDR? Leaving away the term MIR.

  25. #12985
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Here's a bold, testable take away conclusion from this huge conversation (posted for feedback purposes):

    'Any opinion, or inference taken solely from an objectively untestable model, (either in principle or in theory), or a prediction not yet tested out, is a belief.'
    (Where 'a belief' is defined as being: 'Any notion held as being true for any reason').

    (That ought to generate a few sparks ..)

  26. #12986
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    395
    Why can't we just use the same scientific justification for a wider universe existing outside of our current visible universe to justify a MIR existing outside of our current scientific MDR?

  27. #12987
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Here's a bold, testable take away conclusion from this huge conversation (posted for feedback purposes):

    'Any opinion, or inference taken solely from an objectively untestable model, (either in principle or in theory), or a prediction not yet tested out, is a belief.'
    (Where 'a belief' is defined as being: 'Any notion held as being true for any reason').

    (That ought to generate a few sparks ..)
    Do you 'believe' that there is a wider universe outside our visible universe?

  28. #12988
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Do you 'believe' that there is a wider universe outside our visible universe?
    To be honest, I don't spend much time thinking about that .. Should I?

  29. #12989
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Why can't we just use the same scientific justification for a wider universe existing outside of our current visible universe to justify a MIR existing outside of our current scientific MDR?
    Because the first part of what you said: 'the same scientific justification for a wider universe existing outside of our current visible universe', is entirely the subject of our current cosmological model, which was developed by (hundreds .. maybe millions?) of human minds (there's abundant evidence of that). And there's nothing supporting anything in that model being independent of those minds.

    Causality is a mind concept (model) also and there is nothing in the (math articulated) cosmological model that necessarily prescribes that a cause (or 'source') must precede an effect (or 'sink').

  30. #12990
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    To be honest, I don't spend much time thinking about that .. Should I?
    Only if you are of a curious nature.

Posting Permissions

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