Page 416 of 416 FirstFirst ... 316366406414415416
Results 12,451 to 12,469 of 12469

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #12451
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    The observation of the Moons of Jupiter was a clue that Copernican theory was still ok. However, no one knew that as a fact or even how or why. A new theory was needed, which he didn't have until later, mostly likely after 1632 or 1638. He had no theory to work with, because no one had developed one. He was still digesting. Judging and not sharing.
    But it was still key evidence, he just didn't know what to do with it right away because it's hard to build an MDR that works. One thing that was very clear-- Ptolemy's model had nothing going around Jupiter! And that was the accepted model of the day-- Copernican theory was not. So when one finds new evidence, it matters a whole lot more when that evidence refutes the widely held model, then it matters that there is not a new model to make sense of it all.
    Galileo is wrongly assumed to to be a supporter of Copernican theory. The data is remarkably unclear what his thought process was. He was working on something much bigger than that that one theory. By twists and turns he supported it, disproved it, then came back to it. Galilean Relativity is likely a better description of his major achievement.
    That's an interesting point about Copernican theory, and I don't know the entirety of what Galileo had in mind or how it evolved over time, but I would say what is most important about Galileo's observations is not that they supported the (somewhat incorrect) Copernican theory, it is that they refuted the (vastly incorrect) widely accepted view of Galileo's day. The hardest thing is always to convince people who already think they know the truth! That fact is indeed the whole point of recognizing the role of the mind in understanding reality.


    Are you sure that science and judgement leads to MDR?
    I would say that is a fair description of the historical evidence, yes. But there we are talking about scientific MDR-- the MDR generated by religious thinking has in many cases not budged one iota in a thousand years. That's again the importance of the role of the mind-- the mind chooses the method for building the MDR.
    You presented that Galileo observation of the moons of Jupiter was evidence for a theory that no one had.
    Actually, I presented it as evidence that human minds had made an error in understanding their reality, which it was. That there was not immediately a new model is no kind of evidence that an MDR was not being created there, it is evidence that MDRs take time to make.
    Remember, he broke Copernican theory as much as Geocentric theory.
    Not so-- the basic spirit of Copernican theory is not in its details (like circular orbits, etc.) it is in the core idea that the Earth is a heavenly body too. That's what people tend to forget-- they argue about whether the Earth was moving or the Sun was moving (Eppur si muove, etc.), but that was never the issue because with relativity, we don't even think that issue has an answer today. The Copernican revolution was not that the Earth is moving and the Sun isn't, it was that the Earth is a planet, and the Sun is a star. This completely revolutionized everything about how we think about our place in the cosmos, and is still seen today as we look at extrasolar planets and try to find habitable ones that might be more and more like Earth as we look at more and more possibilities. That's the Copernican revolution that Galileo set in motion, that's the reason he was subjected to house arrest. It meant that we can understand stars in part by looking at the Sun, it meant that there is nothing special about the Earth's place in the cosmos, and it meant that we could use laws of physics we experiment on here on Earth to understand what is happening in space. It was vastly important, almost everything we do in astronomy today stems from what Galileo had in mind there!
    People work as if Galileo's mindset was or is known when it wasn't and still isn't. What he had was evidence that the Copernican theory was wrong when he observed the mountains on our moon. Observations of the moons of Jupiter didn't make it right. That took decades of thought and theory.
    I agree that we often oversimplify history to make everything fit the MDR we would like. Nevertheless, one must understand what is the real importance of the Copernican mindset, which as I said, revolutionized everything in astronomy and has little to do with the detailed elements like circular orbits that were refuted by Kepler. That's what Galileo understood right away, that much is clear. The whole idea that you can do experiments on motion on Earth to understand motion in the cosmos is not only quintessentially Copernican thinking, it's what matters about Copernican thinking. It's what revolutionized our cosmic MDR, by unifying it with Earth.

    Observation, judgment, then theory followed by evidence.
    Yes, that's the scientific process for building an MDR, where the "D" is clear even in the words you just chose.
    You aren't observing your mind, making judgement about you mind.
    Correct, that is not what MDR refers to.
    You are observation nature/reality and making judgement about what you think of that. That isn't science, it's making an observation.
    Not sure why you want to distinguish a key aspect of doing science with the entirety of science, they don't need to be exactly the same thing to be related.

    Saying something is so doesn't make it reality. Relating unevaluated observations as facts isn't a theory.
    No one said otherwise. Certainly one cannot understand MDR without first understanding the actual process by which an MDR gets created, including the scientific version. The point of the thread is that the mind has a role, and therefore understanding that role must be part of understanding the result.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-May-28 at 04:34 PM.

  2. #12452
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I already refuted that claim. The problem here is not that my MDR doesn't contain sources, it is that you have your own beliefs about what sources have to be, that I simply don't believe. For example, when I turn on a lightbulb, I regard the lightbulb as a source of the light I see. Yet I don't claim any of that experience is mind independent, I simply model light bulbs as "hot" filaments that "send out" light when I run what I model as "current" flowing through them. Everything I just quoted is a model, and the sentence looks just like what you might find in a science book. So science is not at all limited by your beliefs that "sources" have to be mind independent, we use demonstrably mind dependent models all the time, and those models embody just fine the concept of a "source." That's what I was telling you above-- you can choose to believe that "sources" have to be some kind of deity, like the ancients believed, or you can choose to believe that sources have to be mind independent, but science never uses any of those concepts, and neither do I-- because I don't believe in them. Your claims are never anything that you test, you only assert beliefs. You are welcome to hold those beliefs, all I'm asking you to recognize is:
    1) they are personal beliefs with no predictive quality and no intent to test, and
    2) someone who does not share those beliefs can still do exactly the same science without them.
    How can an MDR lightbulb be the source of light? An MDR lightbulb is a product of MDR created by the brain. How can an MDR brain create itself to create its own MDR model?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post

    No, what I observe happening is brains being involved in creating what they mean by reality, and the result depending on those brains, as is happening right here and now. And I'm not saying that, I'm observing that happening. As it is again right here, as you tell me that your brain regards "sources" as having to be either deities, or mind independent entities of some kind, even though science never uses either of those notions. All I am doing is observing it happening, and pointing out when I observe it happening. The mind dependence is very easy to see, you only have to look.
    How can a brain (which is an MDR entity) be involved in creating itself ? Where does it all start??

  3. #12453
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,393
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    How can an MDR lightbulb be the source of light?
    Exactly the way the workings of a light bulb are described in any science book. Just pick it up and read, and there's your answer as to how an MDR lightbulb can be the source of light-- it will be models from start to finish. Go look.
    An MDR lightbulb is a product of MDR created by the brain. How can an MDR brain create itself to create its own MDR model?
    Again, one needs to use the correct "algebra of models." When we model a light bulb in a given way, and we model light in a given way, we put those models together to get a new model that says the light bulb is the source of the light. At no time are we claiming that the one model is the source of the other model, that's just not the way ideas combine in science books.
    How can a brain (which is an MDR entity) be involved in creating itself ? Where does it all start??
    Yes, all entities invoked by science are MDR entities, all contributing to our concept of MDR. This includes the concept of creation, and how things "start", which is also quite demonstrably a mind dependent model in itself (just look at how the concept of a "start" to the universe has changed dramatically over the mind-dependent evolution of human culture). So you are asking me how a brain understands itself. I'm saying, by making and testing mind-dependent models-- and this is easy to observe happening, just visit any neuroscientist at work. We merely have a long way to go yet-- there are not yet good models for understanding how brains understand themselves, and even the models of how the brain works, that don't include our process of making and understanding our own models, are not very complete yet. This is natural for the course of science, it's not any kind of paradox-- merely a tough nut to crack.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-May-29 at 12:10 AM.

  4. #12454
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Exactly the way the workings of a light bulb are described in any science book. Just pick it up and read, and there's your answer as to how an MDR lightbulb can be the source of light-- it will be models from start to finish. Go look.
    Again, one needs to use the correct "algebra of models." When we model a light bulb in a given way, and we model light in a given way, we put those models together to get a new model that says the light bulb is the source of the light. At no time are we claiming that the one model is the source of the other model, that's just not the way ideas combine in science books.
    Yes, all entities invoked by science are MDR entities, all contributing to our concept of MDR. This includes the concept of creation, and how things "start", which is also quite demonstrably a mind dependent model in itself (just look at how the concept of a "start" to the universe has changed dramatically over the mind-dependent evolution of human culture). So you are asking me how a brain understands itself. I'm saying, by making and testing mind-dependent models-- and this is easy to observe happening, just visit any neuroscientist at work. We merely have a long way to go yet-- there are not yet good models for understanding how brains understand themselves, and even the models of how the brain works, that don't include our process of making and understanding our own models, are not very complete yet. This is natural for the course of science, it's not any kind of paradox-- merely a tough nut to crack.
    What you adhere to, seems to me, not Mind Dependent Reality, but rather MCR, Mind Created Reality.
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2017-May-29 at 10:32 AM.

  5. #12455
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,393
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Watch you adhere to, seems to me, not Mind Dependent Reality, but rather MCR, Mind Created Reality.
    I wouldn't prefer MCR because "mind created reality" sounds like it implies the mind is free to just make up reality any way it likes, which would be a poor model that passes no tests. But the idea that the mind plays a role in the reality it perceives, and the easily testable fact that we can see how the workings of various different minds contribute to their different concepts of reality, is an excellent model that passes a mountain of tests. For example, we can watch a scientific mind assemble observational evidence and generate a story of a 13.8 billion year history of the universe, and we can also watch a non-scientific mind generate a view that the universe is some 6000 years old by reading a single religious text and holding a faith in the authority of that text. It's not that either of those minds is more sure of their reality, indeed either one could easily be the more sure of their chosen approach. What differs is how the mind goes about it. But someone with religious faith does not create a 6000 year story, nor does the scientific mind create that story either, if by "create" one means generate all by itself without any input from anything we don't associate with those minds. Instead, both are led to the story by their perceptions and experiences, and the ways that mind relates to those perceptions and experiences. So that sounds more like MDR, not MCR, which is why the former is being used. This is easy to observe happening, which is the point-- it's all quite simple to test.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-May-29 at 06:37 AM.

  6. #12456
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,733
    So, if the mind plays a role in the reality it perceives, what does it percieve? What constrains the mind in making up reality?

  7. #12457
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    For example, we can watch a scientific mind assemble observational evidence and generate a story of a 13.8 billion year history of the universe, and we can also watch a non-scientific mind generate a view that the universe is some 6000 years old by reading a single religious text and holding a faith in the authority of that text. It's not that either of those minds is more sure of their reality, indeed either one could easily be the more sure of their chosen approach. What differs is how the mind goes about it. But someone with religious faith does not create a 6000 year story, nor does the scientific mind create that story either, if by "create" one means generate all by itself without any input from anything we don't associate with those minds. Instead, both are led to the story by their perceptions and experiences, and the ways that mind relates to those perceptions and experiences. So that sounds more like MDR, not MCR, which is why the former is being used. This is easy to observe happening, which is the point-- it's all quite simple to test.
    You need to differentiate between models of the past (which we have not observed), trying to explain things. This is not reality. This is a speculation. Try to concentrate on what we experience in every day life, the moon, the sun we observe right now, without trying to come up with theories of their origin and past. The latter is definitely MDR. A speculative model creating what we have not experienced in the past.

  8. #12458
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,812
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    What constrains the mind in making up reality?
    If we play the word game, "that which constrains the mind in making up reality" is a concept your mind thought about when you formulated your question. So "that which constrains the mind in making up reality" is a model created by your mind. (The fact your mind didn't make up a detailed model isn't important. We don't have high standards for what it takes for something to be a model.)

  9. #12459
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,393
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    So, if the mind plays a role in the reality it perceives, what does it percieve?
    A good way to answer questions like this is to do science. A good way to see the science that has already been done on it is by looking in a science book. So, for example, if you want to know "what does the mind perceive," find a science book about the five senses, and see what has been learned to answer your question. When you do this, what you will find, starting on page one of that science book, is mind-dependent models. Go ahead and do it.
    What constrains the mind in making up reality?
    That depends on the mind-dependent approach one takes to building an MDR. Again, if the mind chooses science, then what constrains the mind is that it must follow the scientific method. If the mind chooses a particular religion, then what constrains the mind is what is written in the authoritative texts of that religion.
    You need to differentiate between models of the past (which we have not observed), trying to explain things. This is not reality. This is a speculation.
    Yet what models are you talking about that are not "models of the past"? Even when you look at the Moon, you are seeing something as it was when the light was emitted from it, which is in the past, so you are modeling the past even then. Also, you say that "models of the past" are "not reality." Yet I have shown you, over and over, that every time you describe what you think reality is, that you are invoking models about something that happened in the past! And the way you do that depends on your mind. So I'll go with the observational evidence on this one, not your beliefs.
    Try to concentrate on what we experience in every day life, the moon, the sun we observe right now, without trying to come up with theories of their origin and past. The latter is definitely MDR.
    It would be nice if we could really draw the "line in the sand" that you allude to here, where we could look at the Moon and say "I'm not speculating there is a Moon there right now, but I would be speculating if I talked about how it got there." Unfortunately (or fortunately) in science there are no such black-and-white distinctions between speculation and certainty. We do use the concept of what we are certain of, and what we are only speculating about, but these are of course simply more useful models-- there's no fundamental difference there, we can always find a continuous sequence of claims about the Moon that we feel we have greater and greater uncertainty about, thereby generating a list of claims that continuously span the degree of uncertainty between the idea that there is a Moon there right now, and some theory about how it was created. This continuous sequence of models of various degrees of testing shows that every claim in that sequence is indeed a model, all that is different about them is how well tested they are. But the amazing thing about science is that even the most well-tested models are subject to revision, and even at times, complete replacement!

    Now, someone might naturally ask, how could it ever come to pass that we would regard the existence of the Moon at the present time as a model that needs revision? Well, the answer is, plenty of ways! It might not be so much the vague language "the existence of the Moon" that changes, but rather the specifics of what we even mean by the word "existence", and what we think "the Moon" actually is. Either or both of those could easily undergo revision or even complete replacement, who can even guess how those meanings might be different a thousand years from now. We already have, today, theoretical physicists who think what you call "the Moon" is actually only a particular manifestation from a set of objects vastly outside our ability to perceive (the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), and UFO enthusiasts who think it is a hollow alien spaceship, etc. A thousand years from now? Who can even guess.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-May-29 at 03:11 PM.

  10. #12460
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,393
    Quote Originally Posted by tashirosgt View Post
    If we play the word game, "that which constrains the mind in making up reality" is a concept your mind thought about when you formulated your question.
    Again the valueless device of inserting meaningless phrases like "if we play the word game." How ironic that someone invoking that device is complaining about "word games," you just can't make this stuff up. Let's see what really happened in your "argument": when you insert "if we play the word game" in the beginning of anything we say, what follows.... has not been informed in any way. ("If we play the word game" of writing forum posts, then... "If we play the word game" of entering into scientific discourse, then.... see?) So let's remove that useless phrase and rewrite what you said without it, to see if the claim has been changed in any way:

    "that which constrains the mind in making up reality" is a concept your might thought about when you formulated your question.

    Now we have a statement we can actually assess, something we can test. So let's test it: let's go ahead and see if those words do indeed refer to a concept (yup, they sure do, test passed, it's a concept we could understand more about by questioning gzhpcu further about what he meant when he asked about the constraints on the mind), and if that concept was indeed something gzhpcu's mind was thinking about when formulating the question (yup, test passed again). Ah, so now we are thinking scientifically, we are actually bothering to test our claims. And sure enough they test out quite well. So we have excellent evidence the statement is indeed correct: we are indeed dealing with concepts that depend on gzhpcu's mind when we answer the question he just asked.

    Now, of course we can also choose to not think scientifically, and find some kind of objection to what tests out well, and say it's "just" a model that is testing out well, or that it is a "word game" that it is testing out well, but the simple fact is, those aren't arguments of anything-- the argument is the tests that are being passed, so that's where I choose to focus my attention. I wish to think scientifically.

    (The fact your mind didn't make up a detailed model isn't important.
    Ah, now we have added a new device to your litany of non-arguments. You have discovered you can simply insert the word "detailed" as if that somehow invalidated what we have just tested. If we rewrite what you just said without the word "detailed", what you are saying becomes nonsense, so your objection cannot be about the statement that was being tested, it is about some perceived absence of "detail" that bothers you! But no one else was talking about detail, so you are bothered by something you invented yourself. Again the irony of complaining about "word games"!

    Let's assess the problems with your issue with "detail." When Newton gives us a universal law of gravity, the uninformed can object on grounds that it isn't a "detailed" model of gravity because it doesn't give any details about how gravity works, only what it does. Or if Darwin says that evolution occurs by natural selection, well that's not a "detailed" model because it doesn't say how natural selection actually works, or how the attributes of a parent are passed on to the next generation. But fortunately, science is not held back by these non-arguments, the scientific thinker recognizes a range of value in a range of models of various degree of "detail." Hence, the scientific thinker, rather than the rhetorical thinker, doesn't see any problem in recognizing that some models are more "detailed" than others! It doesn't make them not models, and it doesn't make them mind independent, it just means we can recognize a range of detail when we consider various models and their mind dependences.

    Indeed, a thinker who focuses on evidence in support of claims wonders why you would even mention the level of detail of any given model, as it a basic prediction of the MDR hypothesis that models of reality should exhibit various levels of detail. In fact that's a critical element of the mind dependence! If one compares the MDR of a one-year-old to the MDR of Albert Einstein, I'm going to guess one will see a contrast in "detail" there, and I'll wager that physicists' models of reality a thousand years from now will be vastly more "detailed" than what most people off the street have access to today. So by invoking the range in detail of various mind-dependent models, you are only making my case for me, though you seem to think it is some kind of counterargument. More mind dependence, apparently!
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-May-29 at 03:49 PM.

  11. #12461
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    A good way to answer questions like this is to do science. A good way to see the science that has already been done on it is by looking in a science book. So, for example, if you want to know "what does the mind perceive," find a science book about the five senses, and see what has been learned to answer your question. When you do this, what you will find, starting on page one of that science book, is mind-dependent models. Go ahead and do it.That depends on the mind-dependent approach one takes to building an MDR.
    That is absolutely no answer to my question. Totally unsatisfying. In other words, you know exactly what I mean by my question but keep avoiding taking a position. OK, let's leave it at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Again, if the mind chooses science, then what constrains the mind is that it must follow the scientific method. If the mind chooses a particular religion, then what constrains the mind is what is written in the authoritative texts of that religion.Yet what models are you talking about that are not "models of the past"? Even when you look at the Moon, you are seeing something as it was when the light was emitted from it, which is in the past, so you are modeling the past even then. Also, you say that "models of the past" are "not reality."
    Sorry that is distorting what I am saying. I was speaking of things not directly observed, like the Big Bang, quarks, etc. You are picking easy, distorted examples to prove your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Yet I have shown you, over and over, that every time you describe what you think reality is, that you are invoking models about something that happened in the past! And the way you do that depends on your mind. So I'll go with the observational evidence on this one, not your beliefs.It would be nice if we could really draw the "line in the sand" that you allude to here, where we could look at the Moon and say "I'm not speculating there is a Moon there right now, but I would be speculating if I talked about how it got there." Unfortunately (or fortunately) in science there are no such black-and-white distinctions between speculation and certainty. We do use the concept of what we are certain of, and what we are only speculating about, but these are of course simply more useful models-- there's no fundamental difference there, we can always find a continuous sequence of claims about the Moon that we feel we have greater and greater uncertainty about, thereby generating a list of claims that continuously span the degree of uncertainty between the idea that there is a Moon there right now, and some theory about how it was created. This continuous sequence of models of various degrees of testing shows that every claim in that sequence is indeed a model, all that is different about them is how well tested they are. But the amazing thing about science is that even the most well-tested models are subject to revision, and even at times, complete replacement!

    Now, someone might naturally ask, how could it ever come to pass that we would regard the existence of the Moon at the present time as a model that needs revision? Well, the answer is, plenty of ways! It might not be so much the vague language "the existence of the Moon" that changes, but rather the specifics of what we even mean by the word "existence", and what we think "the Moon" actually is. Either or both of those could easily undergo revision or even complete replacement, who can even guess how those meanings might be different a thousand years from now. We already have, today, theoretical physicists who think what you call "the Moon" is actually only a particular manifestation from a set of objects vastly outside our ability to perceive (the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), and UFO enthusiasts who think it is a hollow alien spaceship, etc. A thousand years from now? Who can even guess.
    Come, come those examples are ludicrous. You see things in an over-complicated fashions. It is very simple: I look out the window this evening and see the moon, period. Very simple model. Your examples are fringe speculations, way beyond the simple contemplating of the moon.

  12. #12462
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,393
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    That is absolutely no answer to my question. Totally unsatisfying.
    I'm sorry that you feel the scientific method is unsatisfying. I know a lot of creationists agree with you there.
    Sorry that is distorting what I am saying. I was speaking of things not directly observed, like the Big Bang, quarks, etc.
    No, I was not distorting what you were claiming, I'm reporting it quite accurately. You are trying to pretend there is some kind of line in the sand you can draw between a "model of the past", like the Big Bang, and a model of the present, like the Moon. I was providing actual evidence that this line does not exist, there are only models of the distant past and models of the recent past, models that have data accessible only to advanced telescopes and data accessible to the human eye. These are facts, I'm sorry you don't like them, but all you are doing is creating a new model, a mind-dependent model that pretends there is some fundamental difference between a model of what the universe was like a billion years ago and what the Moon was like a few seconds ago. But the difference is only in degree, that's what the facts say here.
    You are picking easy, distorted examples to prove your point.
    But I am proving my point all the same. That's what evidence is all about. It's not a problem for my argument that the evidence is so easy, and tacking the word "distortion" onto something, without providing any evidence of any distortion, is simply not an argument that holds up in scientific thinking.
    Come, come those examples are ludicrous. You see things in an over-complicated fashions.
    More value judgements instead of an argument. You know, people who don't like the idea that humans evolved from apes call that "ludicrous" also, and they also don't provide any evidence that it is ludicrous. Do you have any evidence I see things in an over-complicated fashion? I see things as more complicated than my dog does, that's true. But that's just how mind dependence works.
    I look out the window this evening and see the moon, period.
    Yes, you do see that don't you. And your cat or dog doesn't. Mind dependence.

    Very simple model.
    We can certainly agree that you are applying a simple model. I fail to see how that fact fits into any kind of counterargument-- yes, models can be simple, we certainly agree on that.
    Your examples are fringe speculations, way beyond the simple contemplating of the moon.
    I don't even know what "speculation" you are talking about, but I can see that I am providing evidence and you are not. Now there's a simple fact for you. Are you saying that some minds invoke more speculative models in their MDR than others do? Yes, we can certainly agree that is true, it's what we might call "mind dependence."
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-May-29 at 06:01 PM.

  13. #12463
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I'm sorry that you feel the scientific method is unsatisfying. I know a lot of creationists agree with you there.
    You did not understand my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    No, I was not distorting what you were claiming, I'm reporting it quite accurately. You are trying to pretend there is some kind of line in the sand you can draw between a "model of the past", like the Big Bang, and a model of the present, like the Moon. I was providing actual evidence that this line does not exist, there are only models of the distant past and models of the recent past, models that have data accessible only to advanced telescopes and data accessible to the human eye. These are facts, I'm sorry you don't like them, but all you are doing is creating a new model, a mind-dependent model that pretends there is some fundamental difference between a model of what the universe was like a billion years ago and what the Moon was like a few seconds ago. But the difference is only in degree, that's what the facts say here.
    No, you still do not get it. I am contrasting looking at the moon directly, and coming up with a model of the birth of the universe. The first is directly experienced, the second is not, it is a product of speculation and has changed continuosly through the ages. Whereas the perceived moon is the same for homo sapiens as for neanderthal. Is that so hard to understand?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    But I am proving my point all the same. That's what evidence is all about.
    I would appreciate a conversation without persons resorting to blowing their own horn all the time...


    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    It's not a problem for my argument that the evidence is so easy, and tacking the word "distortion" onto something, without providing any evidence of any distortion, is simply not an argument that holds up in scientific thinking.
    More value judgements instead of an argument. You know, people who don't like the idea that humans evolved from apes call that "ludicrous" also, and they also don't provide any evidence that it is ludicrous. Do you have any evidence I see things in an over-complicated fashion? I see things as more complicated than my dog does, that's true. But that's just how mind dependence works.
    Yes, you do see that don't you. And your cat or dog doesn't. Mind dependence.
    My dog sees the moon as I see it. It just does not speculate about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    We can certainly agree that you are applying a simple model. I fail to see how that fact fits into any kind of counterargument-- yes, models can be simple, we certainly agree on that. I don't even know what "speculation" you are talking about, but I can see that I am providing evidence and you are not. Now there's a simple fact for you. Are you saying that some minds invoke more speculative models in their MDR than others do? Yes, we can certainly agree that is true, it's what we might call "mind dependence."
    For the umpteenth time, speculation refers to mathematical models science resorts to. I am saying simply that there are simple models, product of direct sensorial input, and there are complex mental models which are created based on, for example, bubble chamber collisions. Two different things.

  14. #12464
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,725
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    How can you prove that the origins of phenomena are unknowable?
    again: it could be a dream, it could be subquantum, it could be agents like gods or fairies, it could be telepathy, it could be lots of things you like to dismiss as silly but you simply don't know. Since you don't choose to think about physics the several mainstream interpretations of what quantum reality means pass you by.
    It's not for me to prove anything, it's for you to find a test that disproves the MDR argument. Unknowable in this argument separates knowledge (in minds) from beliefs. How can you test if there are gods taking an interest in what seems random to us? It's not enough to call "silly" if you cannot test it it's unknowable.

    I say your belief in your reality of trees and tigers cannot be elevated to knowledge of fundamentals just because you know what a tiger etc is in your reality. Your belief is 100% based on phenomena striking your senses and models you make about those.

    No problem, you are entitled to believe in your reality. But it's a mind based belief.
    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

  15. #12465
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    again: it could be a dream, it could be subquantum, it could be agents like gods or fairies, it could be telepathy, it could be lots of things you like to dismiss as silly but you simply don't know. Since you don't choose to think about physics the several mainstream interpretations of what quantum reality means pass you by.
    Sorry, but it is simply not true the way you state it. I do think about physics, and have been reading books on physics since my childhood. It is just that for me reality, means actually existing physically. QM, M-theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Big Bang, etc. are great intellectual achievements, but they are models of reality. As I have said before: the model is a representation of reality. The model gets refined with time. It is a description of reality. The blueprint and technical specifications of an automobile is not the automobile itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    It's not for me to prove anything, it's for you to find a test that disproves the MDR argument. Unknowable in this argument separates knowledge (in minds) from beliefs. How can you test if there are gods taking an interest in what seems random to us? It's not enough to call "silly" if you cannot test it it's unknowable.

    I say your belief in your reality of trees and tigers cannot be elevated to knowledge of fundamentals just because you know what a tiger etc is in your reality. Your belief is 100% based on phenomena striking your senses and models you make about those.

    No problem, you are entitled to believe in your reality. But it's a mind based belief.
    Interesting discussion, nonetheless. I would still like for someone to point me to a peer-reviewed paper on the internet, which formally presents the MDR stance and is accepted by the scientific community. And not implied, but explicitly presented.
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2017-May-30 at 11:18 AM. Reason: conclusion

  16. #12466
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,725
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Sorry, but it is simply not true the way you state it. I do think about physics, and have been reading books on physics since my childhood. It is just that for me reality, means actually existing physically. QM, M-theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Big Bang, etc. are great intellectual achievements, but they are models of reality. As I have said before: the model is a representation of reality. The model gets refined with time. It is a description of reality. The blueprint and technical specifications of an automobile is not the automobile itself.
    Interesting discussion, nonetheless. I would still like for someone to point me to a peer-reviewed paper on the internet, which formally presents the MDR stance and is accepted by the scientific community. And not implied, but explicitly presented.
    my impression is that most scientists do accept that we use our minds but it does not need stating all the time. When people talk about reality they mean our model and understanding of reality. Some might agree that there must be something as the source but given just a little thought about it they agree we can only get better predictive models. The elusive source will never be known by us. So this thread for many is just stating the obvious. However beliefs cling on tenaciously as "truths" don't they? Beliefs are not truths.
    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

  17. #12467
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,733
    Or, in other words, it is assumed.... Well, actually, I would say that, for my part, we have reached a standoff. Irrestible force vs immovable object. So, probably there is not much sense in continuing. Anyone else interested (which I probably doubt), can draw theit own conclusions... Peace.... Thanks for the discussion....

  18. #12468
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,393
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    No, you still do not get it. I am contrasting looking at the moon directly, and coming up with a model of the birth of the universe.
    No, I get it completely. You think those are two totally different things, but you provide no argument, no evidence, you just state your belief. But I am providing evidence that they are only different in degree, no fundamental difference. Both are models, both supported by data. The difference is only in how much data and how easily accessed that data is to the common person. Otherwise, they are just the same-- one chooses a method for making an MDR, and one builds and tests models to put into that MDR. That's it, that's science, whether it is a model of a tiger in a zoo or the history of the universe.
    The first is directly experienced, the second is not, it is a product of speculation and has changed continuosly through the ages.
    Again this false dichotomy between what is "directly" experienced. So you think that if you see a tiger in a zoo, that is more "direct" than an astronomer taking a spectrum and analyzing it? No, the astronomer who measures a spectrum, and applies well-known analysis techniques to conclude they are seeing something highly redshifted, is no different from you looking at a tiger. You are both "directly" experiencing your perceptions, and you are both applying well-tested models to make sense of those perceptions. The only difference is in the degree of expertise required, that's all. The distinction you are making between "direct" and "indirect" knowledge is just another model, another mind-dependent way to make sense by categorizing perceptions.
    Whereas the perceived moon is the same for homo sapiens as for neanderthal. Is that so hard to understand?
    Is it so hard to understand that you are just making that up? The facts are completely different from your claims. The neanderthal would not have perceived the same things at all when they looked at the Moon, though we can't test that we can do tests on the minds we do have access to and see that this is true. When you claim they are perceiving the "same Moon" as you are, all you are doing is creating your own idea of what the Moon is, and projecting your model onto them. But this is no different from making a model of the origin of the universe, and projecting that onto the neantherthals as well-- we say the neanderthal universe originated the same way ours did, in a Big Bang. See? It's just the same thing, we create our own MDR and we say our MDR applies to everyone else, but that doesn't mean they are making the same MDR we are. Your argument boils down to choosing to believe that your own MDR is the "correct one," so you therefore claim you perceive the "same Moon" that the neanderthals did, but the evidence is that they would have perceived different things and made sense of their perceptions differently than you do. Indeed, I already gave a specific example of this very phenomenon-- there are theoretical physicists who have access to vastly more detailed information about the universe than you do, who conclude that the Moon is something completely different from what you think it is. That doesn't make them right, any more than your own perspective makes you right. What it makes is a crystal clear example of different MDR in relation to what you think the Moon is. So the question is, what is so hard for you to understand that some brilliant experts in studying reality conclude the Moon is something completely different from what you think it is?
    My dog sees the moon as I see it.
    Do you ever plan on providing a shred of evidence to support your beliefs, or will you just continue to state beliefs as though they were facts? That's just not how scientific inquiry works. Your claim is obviously wrong, because Ptolemy could have said it too, and of course he would have been completely wrong when he said it because he thought the Moon was some perfect heavenly sphere influenced by forces completely alien to Earth. Of course, you can claim that he was just wrong, but you won't entertain the possibility that your own picture of the Moon is also wrong! But all this is what evidence looks like.

    For the umpteenth time, speculation refers to mathematical models science resorts to.
    Ah, so if there's math involved, it's "speculation", but when there is not math involved, it's just fact. That's one of the most anti-scientific beliefs I've ever heard! But here's the problem with your beliefs here. We can use "mathematical models", which you regard as "speculation", to predict the behavior of a hydrogen atom to 12 decimals of accuracy! Try doing anything like that with one of your "non-speculative" modes of thinking about the Moon. All that is happening here is you are mistaking vagueness for non-speculativeness. If one never tries to say anything precise, it's easy to pretend you are not speculating! Yet what we find in science is that mathematical models are pretty close to the opposite of speculation, that's what the evidence says. It's amazing, yes, it's completely amazing that we can say much more accurate things using mathematical models than we could ever hope to say using a lifetime of experience in the real world, but nevertheless, this amazing fact is a fact all the same, and refutes completely your picture of what is "speculation."
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-May-30 at 02:51 PM.

  19. #12469
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,725
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Or, in other words, it is assumed.... Well, actually, I would say that, for my part, we have reached a standoff. Irrestible force vs immovable object. So, probably there is not much sense in continuing. Anyone else interested (which I probably doubt), can draw theit own conclusions... Peace.... Thanks for the discussion....
    OK thanks for the discussion.
    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

Posting Permissions

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