Page 432 of 441 FirstFirst ... 332382422430431432433434 ... LastLast
Results 12,931 to 12,960 of 13218

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #12931
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    You say you have no problem with that statement and yet you say this :
    ...
    Perhaps you should reread point 3 in that thread summary.
    What's really annoying here is that gzhpcu was directly involved in the speeding car sub-conversation four years ago now .. How long does it take? .. How many times do we have to go over his very same questions?

  2. #12932
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    What you mean by the model of 'stepping in front of a speeding car' tests out quite well, no? Ie: what you mean by that is that you're more than likely ta get killed every time.
    Just what I said.

  3. #12933
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    What's really annoying here is that gzhpcu was directly involved in the speeding car sub-conversation four years ago now .. How long does it take? .. How many times do we have to go over his very same questions?
    Until you give a satisfactory answer.

  4. #12934
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,345
    What is so difficult in acknowledging that something exists outside of our minds? There is really no alternative.

  5. #12935
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G
    3) mind-dependent reality in no way suggests that there is nothing "out there" other than minds, or that what is "out there" is not reality, that's the talk of people who don't understand the thread. Instead, mind-dependent reality means that when we do talk about what is "out there", and we do call it "reality", we are using our minds to do that, and we have no need to claim we are not using our minds, or that what we refer to as being "out there" is in any way independent of our minds. Indeed, scientists can often be seen to talk about what is "out there", outside their minds, as well as what is "in there", inside their minds, and as scientists do that, they can be seen to be using their minds in fundamentally important ways, that could be done very differently by the very different minds we already observe around us.
    Does that count as an acknowledgement?

  6. #12936
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,345
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    Does that count as an acknowledgement?
    In the sense that MDR does not suggest there is nothing out there. And that we use our minds to interpret it.

  7. #12937
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,345
    OK. Lets call it quits. You can not convince me and vice versa. Peace.

  8. #12938
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu
    In the sense that MDR does not suggest there is nothing out there. And that we use our minds to interpret it
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    What is so difficult in acknowledging that something exists outside of our minds? There is really no alternative.
    There is an alternative .. its called the MDR hypothesis in this thread .. MDR carries meaning because it has a context. As soon as we envisage something beyond the mind that envisages it, whatever that may be .. we instantly lose meaning.

    See this excellent YouTube lecture: The Neuroscience of Memory - Eleanor Maguire go to the 5:23 mark (and 1 minute beyond that) for a perfect example of the importance of context. The entire lecture serves as an excellent presentation about how neuroscience has found that the hippocampus region of the brain is always seeking context in order for us to make sense of our perceptions. (Maguire gives a step-by-step recitation of the evidence).

    'Acknowledging that something exists outside of our minds' requires us to abandon what it is that does all of that .. for no substantive, justifiable reason.

    This lack of reasoned justification also serves as a good explanation for 'calling it quits':
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu
    Lets call it quits. ... Peace.
    Yep .. peace .. (always).

  9. #12939
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,656
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    What is so difficult in acknowledging that something exists outside of our minds? There is really no alternative.
    "I have no evidence but I claim it's true because my mind cannot entertain an alternative" is a basic logical fallacy, called "argument from incredulity." Because anyone can use this argument at any time for any reason, once it is allowed in the door it renders all logical discourse moot. Argument from incredulity is also a classic example of MDR thinking, so thanks for yet another passed test by the hypothesis.

  10. #12940
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,656
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    Does that count as an acknowledgement?
    It's an acknowledgement of what the MDR hypothesis says. Is that what you are asking?

  11. #12941
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    It's an acknowledgement of what the MDR hypothesis says. Is that what you are asking?
    I'm not asking, I'm responding to gzhpcu.

  12. #12942
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    There is an alternative .. its called the MDR hypothesis in this thread .. MDR carries meaning because it has a context. As soon as we envisage something beyond the mind that envisages it, whatever that may be .. we instantly lose meaning.

    See this excellent YouTube lecture: The Neuroscience of Memory - Eleanor Maguire go to the 5:23 mark (and 1 minute beyond that) for a perfect example of the importance of context. The entire lecture serves as an excellent presentation about how neuroscience has found that the hippocampus region of the brain is always seeking context in order for us to make sense of our perceptions. (Maguire gives a step-by-step recitation of the evidence).

    'Acknowledging that something exists outside of our minds' requires us to abandon what it is that does all of that .. for no substantive, justifiable reason.

    This lack of reasoned justification also serves as a good explanation for 'calling it quits':
    Yep .. peace .. (always).
    Well, if you want it that way, then I will continue. Try and convince me then. Neither the Youtube video or your quote in italics comes anywhere close to doing that. What are you claiming the mind is anyway? Sounds like the Matrix to me.

  13. #12943
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Well, if you want it that way, then I will continue. Try and convince me then.
    Why would I even attempt to try doing that?
    Its up to you to do that .. and certainly not up to me.

    The evidence is right before you .. but you have to actually look at it in order to see it .. (That would only be if you're interested in doing that, of course .. clearly you're not).

    The amusing thing is that the MDR hypothesis is an active demonstration of the scientific method in action ... I'm just blown away by just how few people actually recognise that .. (not just yourself).

    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu
    Neither the Youtube video or your quote in italics comes anywhere close to doing that. What are you claiming the mind is anyway? Sounds like the Matrix to me.
    Well how it 'sounds' from the viewpoint of a frozen-in miraculous Realism philosophy, is not all that surprising.

    I found the Eleanor Maguire lecture to be an interesting aside, because it shows how neuroscience is busy creating the testable model for tracking down how our sense of reality is very much influenced by various key localised centers within the human brain.

    Tell me this: were you able to remember the story shown at the 5:23 mark? 'Twas just gobbledygook to me when I first saw it ... but after I saw the image context, suddenly it became crystal clear .. ie: just the same as the MDR hypothesis, really.

  14. #12944
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Why would I even attempt to try doing that?
    Its up to you to do that .. and certainly not up to me.

    The evidence is right before you .. but you have to actually look at it in order to see it .. (That would only be if you're interested in doing that, of course .. clearly you're not).

    The amusing thing is that the MDR hypothesis is an active demonstration of the scientific method in action ... I'm just blown away by just how few people actually recognise that .. (not just yourself).

    Well how it 'sounds' from the viewpoint of a frozen-in miraculous Realism philosophy, is not all that surprising.
    .
    I have no problem with MDR and the role of the brain. I also realize that to correctly interpret the universe with our limitations is questionable. Where I draw the line is to state that there is nothing outside of the brain. And what is the brain anyway? Part of the MDR you will say. Sounds like a tiger chasing its tail.

  15. #12945
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,558
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I have no problem with MDR and the role of the brain. I also realize that to correctly interpret the universe with our limitations is questionable. Where I draw the line is to state that there is nothing outside of the brain. And what is the brain anyway? Part of the MDR you will say. Sounds like a tiger chasing its tail.
    Nobody said that. ( Except you just said that.) What MDR says is that you cannot know what is independent of your mind/brain. There is a difference. Two little words: know and believe. Not the same.
    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

  16. #12946
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I have no problem with MDR and the role of the brain. I also realize that to correctly interpret the universe with our limitations is questionable. Where I draw the line is to state that there is nothing outside of the brain. And what is the brain anyway? Part of the MDR you will say. Sounds like a tiger chasing its tail.
    The only person stating that there is nothing outside the brain is you. You have already acknowledged that MDR makes no such claim in this post. Are we simply chasing your tail here?
    Last edited by headrush; 2019-Jul-20 at 09:52 AM. Reason: Remove extra word

  17. #12947
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,263
    So, if we could get past the unevidenced ‘justified true belief’ method of attempting to force MIR into existence, I might be willing to have a go at attempting to give the ‘belief’ in the existence of MIR, some semblance of respectability.

    So here’s one MIR test (please note: Ken G!):

    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’.

    We can however, devise a test which tests the hypothesis, (herewith called ‘the MIR hypothesis’) behind the assumptions underpinning it (conditional logic is being used as the basis here).

    It goes something like this:

    i) If there is an observable mind independent reality that displays behavioural regularities, (this being an explicitly declared assumption),
    then;
    ii) we would expect our observations to enable us to construct models that use those regularities to predict future observations.
    We have done this (there is abundant evidence from astrophysics, physics, etc of this), and these results form the basis of support for the ‘existence of an MIR’ hypothesis (with objective evidence).

    Also;

    iii) If an observable mind independent reality with behavioural regularities was not a viable hypothesis, (herewith an explicitly declared assumption), we would not be able to make consistent observations, or the data we label 'observations’, would not display regularities that would allow us to model behaviours and make useful predictions. We have plenty of results evidence that contradicts this (astrophysics, physics predictions etc), and these results then form an additional basis of support for the MIR hypothesis (with objective evidence).

    This ‘test’, in no way, contradicts (or rules out) the MDR hypothesis in the same way it never ruled out (or contradicted) the possibility of the ‘existence of MIR’ (which treats MIR as a belief or another mind model), whilst allowing science to move forward treating MIR notions/models with neutrality. The MIR hypothesis therefore treats the MDR hypothesis the same way.

    Notes:
    iv) MDR accepts models which include the ‘existence’ of other human minds and their perceptions (with variations) via the evidence of understood in-common language meanings, and if the models resulting from their application of the scientific method to their perceptions are broadly consistent with each other (i.e. there is some ‘objective’ consensus via independent verification), it seems reasonable to posit some common source for these perceptions that has observable regularities of behaviour - i.e. an ‘external’ mind independent reality.

    Oh .. and;
    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.

    Its a bit rough around the edges .. but so was the MDR hypothesis when it started out … I don’t particularly like it … and I certainly don’t believe in any of it!

  18. #12948
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,558
    But that does not get us far because I can offer the MIR is actually controlled by aliens using mind control and all those comments would be valid in that we could assume a material MIR and never test the difference. Surely that is the point here.
    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

  19. #12949
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,656
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I have no problem with MDR and the role of the brain. I also realize that to correctly interpret the universe with our limitations is questionable. Where I draw the line is to state that there is nothing outside of the brain.
    No one in this entire thread has claimed there is nothing outside the brain, that would be another MIR. Can't you see that? If I say there is an absolute truth about reality that says there are things outside the brain that my brain's models "refer to", and those things don't depend on my brain in any way, then I have stated a belief in that particular MIR. If I say there is nothing outside by brain, so of course nothing out there to depend on my brain, then I have stated belief in a different type of MIR. Both are MIR beliefs, neither has anything to do with the testable scientific MDR hypothesis. The reason I keep having to repeat this is the MIR believers simply won't hear what is being said, they keep replacing it with something different (like the Matrix-- which is an MIR by the way!).
    And what is the brain anyway?
    What is an electron? What is a magnetic field? They are all words that refer to classes of models that are applied at various levels of sophistication for various purposes, and achieve various levels of testable success. That's just exactly what they, simply look past your beliefs to what there is actual evidence of. Ten different minds can mean ten somewhat different things when they say "the brain", that's just how MDR building works. Simply look at it in action, test what ten people mean when they say "the brain," or use the same person in ten very different contexts.

    You see, here's the point. Language is very useful. It's so useful that we almost couldn't get by without it. It's so useful that people tend to completely forget what it even is, and start to pretend that it is things that it isn't. Like when someone talks about "the brain," or "the mind", they pretend these words just refer to stuff, and we all know what it refers to, like the concept doesn't matter because it's a thing. But we never use the thing, we always use the concept, so actually it is only the concept that matters, and to the scientist, only the tests that the concept passes. If you want to believe there is "a thing" that is a mind or a brain, knock yourself out, it is a common convenience to believe that. But it is never used in any way that is not just another testable model, and it those testable models that depend on our minds that are all we can ever use or test. The belief that the model is more than a model is a personal choice, and quite irrelevant to any test or evidence.
    Part of the MDR you will say. Sounds like a tiger chasing its tail.
    Please don't tell me you've forgotten all the times I used the tiger chasing its tail metaphor to describe MDR building. Yes: building an MDR is a process we have all undergone since babies, and every step of the way, the process has closely resembled a tiger chasing its tail. The main difference is that the process has been more productive for us than for the tiger. So productive, indeed, that we seem to want to forget we are even doing it. But Escher didn't forget: https://www.nga.gov/features/slidesh...-and-work.html

  20. #12950
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,656
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    I'm not asking, I'm responding to gzhpcu.
    I see, you are clarifying what is, and what is not, being tested with the MDR hypothesis.

  21. #12951
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I see, you are clarifying what is, and what is not, being tested with the MDR hypothesis.
    I was hoping to refute the "there is nothing outside the mind" slight against MDR.

  22. #12952
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,656
    [QUOTE=Selfsim;2489303]

    i) If there is an observable mind independent reality that displays behavioural regularities, (this being an explicitly declared assumption),
    then;
    ii) we would expect our observations to enable us to construct models that use those regularities to predict future observations.
    We have done this (there is abundant evidence from astrophysics, physics, etc of this), and these results form the basis of support for the ‘existence of an MIR’ hypothesis (with objective evidence).
    Here's the problem we face with that: your hypothesis has nothing to do with mind independence. To see this, I will simply cut that part out and see if the testable hypothesis is one iota different. It now becomes:

    i) If reality displays behavioural regularities, (this being an explicitly declared assumption),
    then;
    ii) we would expect our observations to enable us to construct models that use those regularities to predict future observations.
    We have done this (there is abundant evidence from astrophysics, physics, etc of this), and these results form the basis of support for the ‘existence of regularities.'

    See? That is the only hypothesis you are testing here. You never test the "mind independence", nothing in your hypothesis in any way describes, involves, or requires mind independence.

    I see what you are getting at, but this came up a long time ago in the thread. MIR believers regard the clear regularities we all experience (except those whose minds are so different from ours that we discount them as mattering in the argument, which is a choice we often make that we should consider more carefully for many reasons, not all of which are scientific) as "evidence" for an MIR, because they say "If there is no MIR, then why are there regularities?" I responded to this on two fronts:
    1) There are both regularities and irregularities, that's an observed fact and motivates the terms "objective" and "subjective". The normal way our minds make sense of this fact, and build into our MDR, is we associate that which is "objective" with what exists independent from us, and that which is "subjective" depends on our minds. The problem, of course, is that the line between objective and subjective is itself a model, which is easily found to break down if you simply push it far enough. (That was my intention by asking, is the idea that there are independent electrons in each atom an objective truth, or a subjective way of thinking?). So you see, this is the issue-- any attempt to put a concept of MIR into our mind-dependent models faces the problem of breaking down when you try to decide which parts are mind independent and which parts aren't. The very concept of mind dependence vs. mind independence is itself a mind dependent concept, and this is easy to demonstrate.
    2)There exists a fundamental logical inconsistency in the very idea that you can call "mind independence" an aspect of a model that requires your mind to understand. Whenever you put that in as a feature of a model, all I have to do is ask "can different minds mean something different about whatever it is that you are putting in your model that you are calling mind independent? If you say "no," I'll show your claim fails tests. If you say "yes," then I'll ask, "if different minds can include that feature differently, could a mind choose not to include it at all, and how is your model any testably different?"

    So these two flaws in imagining that an MIR component can be put into a testable model boil down to, what aspects you think are mind dependent vs. mind independent will always require enforcing an artificial line in the sand between what parts are mind independent, and that line will fall apart when dug into (like the line in the sand we call "the surface of the Earth"), and moreover, if you require complete mind independence for any aspect of your model, that aspect can simply be left out and the model isn't any different for testing purposes. ONe can always choose to believe an aspect of a model that is not testable and is not even logically consistent, because belief follows different rules from logic and science.
    Now we have:
    iii) If an observable mind independent reality with behavioural regularities was not a viable hypothesis, (herewith an explicitly declared assumption), we would not be able to make consistent observations, or the data we label 'observations’, would not display regularities that would allow us to model behaviours and make useful predictions.
    There are two problems here as well:
    1)Is this a claim you are planning to test, or merely an assertion of a belief of yours? If you think it is a logical necessity, I would like to see you derive it as a syllogism from any other logical necessarity. If you cannot, then you are merely stating your belief, one that a different mind has no reason to accept (indeed, I don't).
    2)My issue with your saying MIR is a viable hypothesis is not that it is refutable, it is that it is not refutable. This also came up in the thread. We already know, scientifically, that there are observable regularities, that's the basis of scientific thinking and scientific MDR building. So you are never testing if the existence of regularities is a viable hypothesis, and you must thus be testing that all viable hypotheses that involve regularities must also involve mind independence. That's easy to refute, I simply take your very same hypothesis and strike out the mind independent part. What does my hypothesis fail that yours passes? You are just tacking on the mind independent part, it's like saying "if mind-independent electrons were not a valid way to describe atoms, then we would not get good results interpreting atoms using mind-independent electrons." The "mind independent" in that statement is only messing it up, it works much better without it because then we can recognize that even though we can describe what we mean by "an electron", we should expect that different minds will take in our description differently, and will therefore be testing a slightly different hypothesis than you are.

    This is what it comes down to. In physics, we always leave out the things we don't know how to deal with or don't want to deal with, that's just how it works. So we calculate the orbit of the Earth ignoring the gravity from Jupiter, unless we need the gravity of Jupiter, in which case we include it. But there's also a magnetic effect from Jupiter, which we have no idea how to include and is very small, so of course we will never include that. When it comes to the role of the mind, it's even harder to include in the physics than the magnetism of Jupiter, but we have no idea how important it is. All we know is that we see regularities that we can model in very simple systems, and we see irregularities that we have no idea how to model in very complicated systems. We model what we can model, and we use what we need. None of this implies that our models are the absolute truth, nor do we need them to be. So since we have no idea to include the mind of the observer in the observation, we just leave it out and hope it doesn't bite us, which is what we always do in physics. That's fine, the error always comes in taking our models too seriously, and thinking they are some absolutely true statement. That is what always ends up biting us!

  23. #12953
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,656
    It's also important to recognize that it's fine to build our mind dependent models in such a way that they leave out whatever we don't know how to treat, in particular, leave out mind dependence. As soon as you leave out mind dependence, your model has a mind independent character, it is entering into a hypothetical and useful pretense that whatever is left out doesn't exist. It's very much the way we talk about experiments that have no scientist in them, an artificial description of a different apparatus than the one you actually find in science labs. We are doing the same thing when we leave friction out of a problem involving an inclined plane. The only difference with friction is we recognize we are doing it. That's the purpose of testing the MDR hypothesis-- simply to be able to know what we are doing when we equip our models with simplifying assumptions that make them easier to picture and apply, but doesn't make them the absolute truth even when they work pretty well in many applications.
    We have plenty of results evidence that contradicts this (astrophysics, physics predictions etc), and these results then form an additional basis of support for the MIR hypothesis (with objective evidence).
    No, all we have evidence of is that we often don't need to include mind dependence, just like we often don't need to include friction. But as with friction, we have plenty of examples of situations where we do need to include it. You gave a perfect example of the latter yourself, in regard to "what the Sun is." Different people in different cultures have very different attitudes about the Sun, they think about it and relate to it very differently than you do. It is just plain a very different reality to them than it is to you. That doesn't mean your model of the Sun, that says it is a "mind independent" object, doesn't work for you in many ways, but your model doesn't help you at all if you want to understand how they relate to the Sun. And if we start digging into the attributes of your "mind independent" Sun, we will quickly find there are no aspects of what you mean by the Sun that don't clearly depend on the knowledge and capabilities of your mind, you have merely tacked on "mind independence" as a simplification like ignoring friction in hopes that it won't matter (and it often doesn't, so that's why you do it).
    iv) MDR accepts models which include the ‘existence’ of other human minds and their perceptions (with variations) via the evidence of understood in-common language meanings, and if the models resulting from their application of the scientific method to their perceptions are broadly consistent with each other (i.e. there is some ‘objective’ consensus via independent verification), it seems reasonable to posit some common source for these perceptions that has observable regularities of behaviour - i.e. an ‘external’ mind independent reality.
    Ah, look at your words here. "It seems reasonable to posit." That is the first step of MDR building, and the role of the mind is completely apparent! "Reasonable" to what mind? Yours and mine? Yes, because our minds are similar. You can't test mind independence with consensus among similar minds, you have to ask if it's reasonable to a very different mind, that applies reason in a very different way or to very different starting axioms. Is it reasonable to a dog? Would it be reasonable to an advanced civilization that understands how their minds affect their perceptions and scientific conclusions?
    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.
    Its a bit rough around the edges .. but so was the MDR hypothesis when it started out … I don’t particularly like it … and I certainly don’t believe in any of it!
    I think it's an important exercise to see if mind independence can be included in a testable way that ends up looking any different from leaving friction out of the analysis of a slippery slope.

  24. #12954
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,263
    Hmm … Ken (and Profloater) have raised valid points .. (thank you both).
    I find it difficult to play the role of the MIR proponent because all I end up seeing is the clarity of the MDR viewpoint and the inconsistency of holding onto the MIR model (aka Realism).

    Apart from serving as a recap of what was covered in essence in this looonng thread, the purpose of the MIR hypothesis was to, at least, attempt to put forward some kind of logical test .. albeit one that leads us back to MIR being a mind model of expediency, or more simply, just a belief.

    I’ll admit that in the years since this thread commenced, I have probed the MDR hypothesis by putting it to all sorts of tests (with all kinds of thinkers).

    I feel discomfort around the issue of MDR’s still reliance on ‘objective’ testing and the objectivity of ‘a self aware mind’. We’ve also gone into this in this thread and Ken just mentioned the objective vs subjective issue again. I think there is ‘weakness’ there as far as the MDR concept goes, as the discussion relies on there being acceptance of scientific thinking in the first place. As an example of this, when I encounter non-scientifically thinking folk who don’t even attempt to make use of the concept of objectivity, the discussion usually ends up being quite pointless. Does this mean MDR loses the utility value it gains from being almost a scientific principle?
    When highlighting the ‘slippery slope’ nature of objectivity, one ends up undermining the notion that MDR is on strong scientific ('objective reality') grounds.
    Many folk simply deny that logic posits the existence of untestable truths, (usually scientific atheisists), whereas religious folk extol the virtues of such a concept.

    MDR also appears to gloss over what I think may be a hidden assumption which still assumes an ‘existence’ nature, or aspect, of perceptions. At one stage during this thread, (way back there), Ken ‘built’ a mind from scratch, but in order to make use of its model (of ‘nothing’ if I recall correctly), logic had to magically appear. This is why the MIR hypothesis branches off from the more objective nature of the MDR hypothesis, almost in parallel .. but relying more on logic.
    Both hypotheses however require logic, but is MDR’s starting ‘mind’ (built from scratch) really using objectivity (and its testing) or does it rely on some logically posited truth? I'm not sure .. but I sure am sceptical about it.

  25. #12955
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,263
    Oh .. and I still don't (holus bolus) accept that a scientifically thinking mind can simply ignore certain aspects of clearly related physics, (ie: friction, Jupiter's magnetic field, etc), pointing to their own free will thinking as the justification for doing this. I think those days of relying on mere free-will (or reliance on individual knowledge) might now be over.
    There seem to always be bodies of evidence arguing for their inclusion in models .. regardless of the mayhem in thinking their inclusion may cause.

    Models thesedays aren't really built by the pioneers of olde (who may have once had delusions of scientific grandeur).

    Exclusions of aspects of physics from models always requires consideration of (and subsequent justification for) those aspects, when raised by other peers.
    I don't think this is, by any means, a simple matter.

  26. #12956
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Hmm … Ken (and Profloater) have raised valid points .. (thank you both).
    I find it difficult to play the role of the MIR proponent because all I end up seeing is the clarity of the MDR viewpoint and the inconsistency of holding onto the MIR model (aka Realism).

    Apart from serving as a recap of what was covered in essence in this looonng thread, the purpose of the MIR hypothesis was to, at least, attempt to put forward some kind of logical test .. albeit one that leads us back to MIR being a mind model of expediency, or more simply, just a belief.

    I’ll admit that in the years since this thread commenced, I have probed the MDR hypothesis by putting it to all sorts of tests (with all kinds of thinkers).

    I feel discomfort around the issue of MDR’s still reliance on ‘objective’ testing and the objectivity of ‘a self aware mind’. We’ve also gone into this in this thread and Ken just mentioned the objective vs subjective issue again. I think there is ‘weakness’ there as far as the MDR concept goes, as the discussion relies on there being acceptance of scientific thinking in the first place. As an example of this, when I encounter non-scientifically thinking folk who don’t even attempt to make use of the concept of objectivity, the discussion usually ends up being quite pointless. Does this mean MDR loses the utility value it gains from being almost a scientific principle?
    When highlighting the ‘slippery slope’ nature of objectivity, one ends up undermining the notion that MDR is on strong scientific ('objective reality') grounds.
    Many folk simply deny that logic posits the existence of untestable truths, (usually scientific atheisists), whereas religious folk extol the virtues of such a concept.

    MDR also appears to gloss over what I think may be a hidden assumption which still assumes an ‘existence’ nature, or aspect, of perceptions. At one stage during this thread, (way back there), Ken ‘built’ a mind from scratch, but in order to make use of its model (of ‘nothing’ if I recall correctly), logic had to magically appear. This is why the MIR hypothesis branches off from the more objective nature of the MDR hypothesis, almost in parallel .. but relying more on logic.
    Both hypotheses however require logic, but is MDR’s starting ‘mind’ (built from scratch) really using objectivity (and its testing) or does it rely on some logically posited truth? I'm not sure .. but I sure am sceptical about it.
    there is a clue in Godel and his incompleteness theorem or indeed in Russell's paradox all showing that maths and logic have their limits and they are clearly mind creations. Just as our model has limits in beginnings and endings and the strange interpretation of our experiments. Current thinking is that there must be more to the model to make it consistent but the need for simplicity is in us, the attraction of elegant solutions is in our idea of beauty and music and maths. We are stuck in our minds but our minds are capable of such creativity that we experience agency within the model. One explanation within MDR is that the feeling of agency is an illusion and we can even see it in neuroscience. But the idea that it all illusion is what drives people to believe in MIR. Just as they believe in supernatural explanations. It must be a direct corollary of consciousness to extend the MDR into belief in an MIR just to make sense of the purposelessness that awaits the hard nature of solipsism. What's the point?
    But fortunately there is so much to explore within MDR that we can be endlessly curious about it. It is so liberating rather than restricting.
    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

  27. #12957
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Oh .. and I still don't (holus bolus) accept that a scientifically thinking mind can simply ignore certain aspects of clearly related physics, (ie: friction, Jupiter's magnetic field, etc), pointing to their own free will thinking as the justification for doing this. I think those days of relying on mere free-will (or reliance on individual knowledge) might now be over.
    There seem to always be bodies of evidence arguing for their inclusion in models .. regardless of the mayhem in thinking their inclusion may cause.

    Models thesedays aren't really built by the pioneers of olde (who may have once had delusions of scientific grandeur).

    Exclusions of aspects of physics from models always requires consideration of (and subsequent justification for) those aspects, when raised by other peers.
    I don't think this is, by any means, a simple matter.
    I only saw this after posting. Free will and agency and invention are part of MDR but do raise challenges but mostly to the MIR camp. How can an MIR of rocks include those aspects of MDR even as illusions? The only MIR that could do that would be a supernatural version with its own consciousness and its own MDR. So here is a question. Could human MDR ever test an external MDR? We have enough difficulty testing if another human is human the way we are! If we cannot test it, we can only get as far as believing. I think that is where we get stuck and frustrating as it might be, we have to be content with ever better models and test those.
    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

  28. #12958
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,345
    Maybe it is only (I hope) a question of terminology. Would you agree to the following, simple statement:

    Our minds construct MDR with sensorial input from an external source?

  29. #12959
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Maybe it is only (I hope) a question of terminology. Would you agree to the following, simple statement:

    Our minds construct MDR with sensorial input from an external source?
    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.

  30. #12960
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,558
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Maybe it is only (I hope) a question of terminology. Would you agree to the following, simple statement:

    Our minds construct MDR with sensorial input from an external source?
    That's just a model. untestable.
    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
  •