Page 52 of 64 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... LastLast
Results 1,531 to 1,560 of 1897

Thread: Philosophical musings of science, reality, blind men and elephants

  1. #1531
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by NoChoice View Post
    Which is based on the belief that your demonstration (i.e. the way evidence is obtained) is correct, just as I said.
    No, it is not based on that, for the simple reason that I do not hold that belief! How can I base my argument on a belief when I do not hold that belief? I've said quite the opposite-- science is not correct, it is wrong. It is always wrong, and not just a little wrong, but completely wrong. It was logic and science that said that gravity made the Earth a special place at the center of the universe, and that was not a little wrong, it was completely wrong. Yet it allowed ancient people to know the right times to plant their crops. It was logic and science that said objects acted on each other at a distance, and gravity was a force, and light propagated through a medium with a special reference frame, and particles follow trajectories. None of these things are a little wrong, they are all completely wrong in the best theories we have today. Yet they all work brilliantly in the contexts where they all continue to be used today, because science uses what works, not is what is correct, and science has no need to believe in anything that it does not have evidence of. Given the way I reserve the meaning of "belief", that means it is rather important not to believe anything at all. If there is evidence for it, I shall not use the word "believe", to clarify this key distinction. I don't say the word believe cannot be used in those situations, it is a versatile word, I say it is obfuscating rather than clarifying to so use it-- a word that is a little too versatile is given to creating confusion.
    I understand you have invested your life in science and in the belief that it yields testable and repeatable results.
    No, certainly not! I would fight to my dying breath against any "pure belief" that science yields testable and repeatable results. Only evidence that it does, that is all I want to have, no belief at all. If I believed it, I would fall victim to the same kinds of beliefs that the MIR camp on this very thread have fallen victim to. They accept various things purely on faith without even knowing they are doing it! No, let me not have that faith, I believe nothing-- I have a body of evidence, and I build an MDR to account for that evidence, that is all I want to do. I'll choose to believe things when it suits me, but not when I'm doing science. Bear in mind that I reserve the word "believe" for the specific context I have mentioned, so you are not using the word in the way I mean it. I'm not trying to be a word nazi that forces you to use the words I use, I'm saying there is a distinction here that you are not making. If you do not make that distinction, you cannot know what separates science from other pursuits.
    The fact that it is based on belief is easily overlooked because it all seems so beautifully consistent.
    Again, that is a terrible evil to do to science. The consistency of science is not the reason we believe it, indeed science is not consistent. Theories of science are idealizations, the very first thing a theory does is throw out global consistency, maintaining only internal consistency. Consistency would require that the theory agree with all other theories, but they don't. Consistency would also require that a theory agree exactly with experiment, but it never does, because there are "experimental errors." Experimental errors really mean that we are forced to do idealizations when we do science, we are forced to enter into a pretense that our experimental apparatus is simpler than it actually is. So goodbye consistency, our idealization is not even consistent with our own apparatus! But it works, because we can look past the errors. That is the true beauty of science, the way it can be use to look past its own errors, and work even though it is wrong in some more universal meaning of right and wrong. But that's not how science uses those words-- what's right, in science, is what achieves the goals set out for it. No belief there, we test these things, and we constantly look for why they are wrong, because we know they are wrong. It's actually pretty close to the opposite of belief!
    But the belief that the entire universe is being created anew in every moment is also beautifully consistent.
    Sure, that's a perfectly fine belief. But it's not science, because it's not testable. That which cannot be wrong is the opposite of science-- science is always wrong, and it is important that science is always wrong, because that's how we know we might actually be doing science.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2014-May-22 at 02:40 PM.

  2. #1532
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,733
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    This is an example of carrying "logic" to a silly level. Of course, the universe was not created 5 minutes ago but if a "philosopher" says I can't prove it, I'd just say: an example of nonsense produced by logic.
    another answer, if you cannot think of a scientific way to denounce the 5 minute ago hypothesis, why is it nonsense? The way you denounce the idea is to consult your own memory and the consensus of others that it seems we have a long history and all that evidence is in human MDR isn't it?
    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

  3. #1533
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That which cannot be wrong is the opposite of science-- science is always wrong, and it is important that science is always wrong, because that's how we know it is science.
    And the usefulness of something that is always wrong is what exactly? :-)

    I assume you got entangled in your own web of arguments and don't really mean that.

    But be that as it may, it is really not important for my argument.

    Just consider this:
    All of your reasoning (of obtaining evidence and how evidence is the basis of science and, really, everything you and everybody else is saying) is based on the use of one fundamental meta-tool: binary logic.
    We cannot test this tool because in order to test it we need to use it. Circular reasoning is unavoidable.
    We need to believe in the validity of that tool.

  4. #1534
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Many people today still believe it was all created at some date in history, all at once or in a creation myth and the agnostic has to say I cannot know, but he can also point to all the scientific evidence in MDR and scientific consensus and say it seems more probable the scientific explanation is the one I prefer to believe.
    Let me invite you to reframe your thinking on this. What you prefer to believe is a personal matter, it's not really anyone else's business and it's not really a valid topic for this forum. Science is not about convincing us what we should prefer to believe, it is about accounting for evidence, and then it's up to us to decide if we want to base our actions on evidence or belief. The scientific explanation accounts for the evidence, and informs us of the next type of evidence we might want to look for to advance science. The belief that the universe was created 5 minutes ago does none of those things. That's it, that's all we need to say, it makes no difference at all what we choose to believe here. Science may give us a reason to believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old if we choose to use it for that, but that's not what defines it, what distinguishes it. What it's for is one thing only: accounting for the current evidence, and motivating the search for new evidence. The purpose of doing that is to be able to understand, predict, and gain power over our circumstances. We never need to believe science accomplishes these goals, we have evidence for it. No one who believes the universe was created 5 minutes ago can say the same thing.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2014-May-22 at 02:49 PM.

  5. #1535
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    It is not nonsense and it is not based on logic! It is an example, an extreme example, based on being agnostic about MIR. Many people today still believe it was all created at some date in history, all at once or in a creation myth and the agnostic has to say I cannot know, but he can also point to all the scientific evidence in MDR and scientific consensus and say it seems more probable the scientific explanation is the one I prefer to believe.
    Sure, believing the universe was created 5 minutes ago is nonsense!

  6. #1536
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    another answer, if you cannot think of a scientific way to denounce the 5 minute ago hypothesis, why is it nonsense? The way you denounce the idea is to consult your own memory and the consensus of others that it seems we have a long history and all that evidence is in human MDR isn't it?
    To repeat again: it is so ridculous that it is not even worth considering.

  7. #1537
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Let me invite you to reframe your thinking on this. What you prefer to believe is a personal matter, it's not really anyone else's business and it's not really a valid topic for this forum. Science is not about convincing us what we should prefer to believe, it is about accounting for evidence, and then it's up to us to decide if we want to base our actions on evidence or belief. The scientific explanation accounts for the evidence, and informs us of the next type of evidence we might want to look for to advance science. The belief that the universe was created 5 minutes ago does none of those things. That's it, that's all we need to say, it makes no difference at all what we choose to believe here. Science may give us a reason to believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old if we choose to use it for that, but that's not what defines it, what distinguishes it. What it's for is one thing only: accounting for the current evidence, and motivating the search for new evidence. The purpose of doing that is to be able to understand, predict, and gain power over our circumstances. We never need to believe science accomplishes these goals, we have evidence for it. No one who believes the universe was created 5 minutes ago can say the same thing.
    Yes I like that frame and indeed evidence and the power of experiment to test evidence is much more appealing than say, shamanism. However we have to be careful to avoid dogma because within his lights a shaman may make predictions that come true. We might scientifically explain such an shamanic "experiment" because we know about placebo and nocebo and we might even allow the shaman to have some kind of deeper psychological insight than we possess. In other words our MDR can include expertise we do not fully understand but which passes the experimental test. If that thought scenario were to come true we would no doubt find scientific ways to test it further and we would form new hypotheses.

    So the point there is that saying evidence is in the MDR does not diminish it as some here would say, it is what we have. Where we find repeatable evidence our theories grow strong within MDR without forgetting they are still MDR.
    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

  8. #1538
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,733
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Sure, believing the universe was created 5 minutes ago is nonsense!
    at the risk of being tedious, I never said I believed in such a thing, what I meant was if you equate reality with MIR you will not be able to show in any way that it has any history within MIR. What you can study is MDR.

    If you go back to basic experience of existence , you cannot even be sure of your own body, your existence experience is your only evidence. We have referred to mind and brain, even that can be questioned if you start at the beginning, waking up say in a sensory deprived state, (part of my professional business), you can be aware and simultaneously unaware of any stimulus at all, no sight, no sound, no feeling. I have been there myself many times, it's easy to achieve. In that state your memories appear intact but it is curiously difficult or impossible to judge the passage of time. In that state all you have is memory inside your awareness. If in that state you choose to imagine you have just started to exist, you can do so easily if you choose. There is no evidence, you just experience being.
    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. #1539
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    at the risk of being tedious, I never said I believed in such a thing, what I meant was if you equate reality with MIR you will not be able to show in any way that it has any history within MIR. What you can study is MDR.
    You said practically the same thing. You said one had to come up with a scientific reason to reject it. It is ridiculous to even consider it worthy of rejection.

    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    If you go back to basic experience of existence , you cannot even be sure of your own body, your existence experience is your only evidence. We have referred to mind and brain, even that can be questioned if you start at the beginning, waking up say in a sensory deprived state, (part of my professional business), you can be aware and simultaneously unaware of any stimulus at all, no sight, no sound, no feeling. I have been there myself many times, it's easy to achieve. In that state your memories appear intact but it is curiously difficult or impossible to judge the passage of time. In that state all you have is memory inside your awareness. If in that state you choose to imagine you have just started to exist, you can do so easily if you choose. There is no evidence, you just experience being.
    Don't follow you. How can memories be intact and it be difficult to judge the passage of time? If it is a dream state, the dream is not static. Time passes in the dream, perhaps at another speed granted, but still passes. Or are you only seeing a frozen image? I don't know what kind of abnormal state you are referring to, but if it is a coma, trance, or whatever, it is an abnormal state. Are you saying hallucinations can be regarded as real?

  10. #1540
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    So the point there is that saying evidence is in the MDR does not diminish it as some here would say, it is what we have. Where we find repeatable evidence our theories grow strong within MDR without forgetting they are still MDR.
    Right, it's all about the weighing of evidence, and unifying and accounting for that evidence, that is all the exclusive role of the MDR. Nothing else does those things, not belief, not MIR. That's what the evidence says anyway, and in 52 pages no one has cited a single shred of evidence that this is not true. Why that fact doesn't speak for itself is beyond me.

  11. #1541
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That's what the evidence says anyway, and in 52 pages no one has cited a single shred of evidence that this is not true. Why that fact doesn't speak for itself is beyond me.
    Because, like most philosophical stances, it is unfalsifiable and hence no evidence can be provided to show that it is not true. Thus the fact that none has been given doesn't speak for anything. You could make the same appeal in support of any flavour of ontology.

  12. #1542
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Right, it's all about the weighing of evidence, and unifying and accounting for that evidence, that is all the exclusive role of the MDR. Nothing else does those things, not belief, not MIR. That's what the evidence says anyway, and in 52 pages no one has cited a single shred of evidence that this is not true. Why that fact doesn't speak for itself is beyond me.
    Evidence of what? MDR is purely a mental model feed by our senses, and extended by our tools. Why is MDR constantly evolving? Because it is a model, and as our needs and technology progress, we refine the model. The MDR and the MIR are two different animals. The MIR is that which we measure, albeit with the restricitions of our MIR senses, including our MIR brain.

  13. #1543
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by NoChoice View Post
    And the usefulness of something that is always wrong is what exactly?
    You can answer that for yourself, just look at your day so far. I'm sure you can find, if you dig hard enough, a dozen example of wrong things that have been useful to you today (where by "wrong" I mean in the universal sense of true or false, not in the useful sense where science redefines right to be what accomplishes the goals required). I already gave an example-- the wrong idea that the Earth has a surface.
    I assume you got entangled in your own web of arguments and don't really mean that.
    Not at all, I mean precisely that. Science is always wrong, and is supposed to be always wrong, but only "wrong" relative to an impossible and unnecessary standard of truth that naive people often hold, like "part of the MIR" kind of truth. Science is never that. Now, the naive camp says that the reason it is never that is that it is iterating toward that, or converging on that, but the evidence is that science does no such thing. Just look at my example of "the surface of the Earth", is that concept converging on something in the MIR? No, it is just what it is, a conceptual idealization that is not in any MIR, is not converging toward any MIR, gets more and more wrong the more physics we come to understand, and is vastly useful to us every single day of our lives.
    Just consider this:
    All of your reasoning (of obtaining evidence and how evidence is the basis of science and, really, everything you and everybody else is saying) is based on the use of one fundamental meta-tool: binary logic.
    I realize that. But that doesn't mean I believe in it, it means I use it because I have evidence that it works, and I have no evidence that anything else does. I will choose not to use it completely at my own discretion, but I will not call it science unless I do use it. No belief anywhere, not in the painstaking way I've clarified what I mean by "belief".
    We cannot test this tool because in order to test it we need to use it. Circular reasoning is unavoidable.
    We certainly can, and do, test this tool. The test looks like an experiment that comes out A if the the tool passed the test, and not A if it didn't. The experiment could be that I take an aspirin when I have a headache, to pick a random example. If I find that my headache goes away more often when I take the aspirin then when I take a placebo (if I have access to such artifices), then I say I have evidence that aspirin helps with headaches. And when I tie the process all together using the rules of logic, and I find evidence that the process is working, then I say logic has passed a test as well. It's all testable, all science. Science never uses logic because logic "has to be" right, or is "believed on faith" to be right, science uses logic because we find evidence that it works. Mathematics is just the same, by the way-- we do not teach mathematics to children because we know it has to be right, indeed we know no such thing. We teach mathematics because we have evidence that it works.
    We need to believe in the validity of that tool.
    It's all based on evidence, not belief.

  14. #1544
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Because, like most philosophical stances, it is unfalsifiable and hence no evidence can be provided to show that it is not true. Thus the fact that none has been given doesn't speak for anything. You could make the same appeal in support of any flavour of ontology.
    Not so, I have already given the ontology that this is not true for: the MDR. The MDR is precisely the ontology that we have evidence for, that is its entire raison d'etre. Of course none of this implies the MDR is true in any sense beyond this one: we have evidence that it works, and that's all "true" ever means in science.

  15. #1545
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Not so, I have already given the ontology that this is not true for: the MDR. The MDR is precisely the ontology that we have evidence for, that is its entire raison d'etre. Of course none of this implies the MDR is true in any sense beyond this one: we have evidence that it works, and that's all "true" ever means in science.
    Alright then, what experiment could be done, even in principle, that falsifies MDR?

  16. #1546
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Evidence of what?
    Evidence that our MDR works for us, accomplishing the goals we started out on the process of building an MDR when we were about a year old.
    MDR is purely a mental model feed by our senses, and extended by our tools.
    Yes, it is purely that indeed.
    Why is MDR constantly evolving? Because it is a model, and as our needs and technology progress, we refine the model.
    Absolutely correct.
    The MDR and the MIR are two different animals.
    Yes, the first is evidence-based and is used by science, the second is faith-based and is not used by science, even though many here do not yet seem to realize this. They cannot present any evidence that MIR is used by science, nor does MIR appear anywhere in the scientific method (this is a demonstrable fact), yet they ignore these facts.
    The MIR is that which we measure, albeit with the restricitions of our MIR senses, including our MIR brain.
    Well that's what you believe on faith, but all we really have evidence of is that we do measurements.

  17. #1547
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    You agreed that MDR is purely a mental model feed by our sense, and extended by our tools. In that case, what according to you is it measuring? What is it a model of?

  18. #1548
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Alright then, what experiment could be done, even in principle, that falsifies MDR?
    Every experiment we do can falsify our MDR, pick any at all-- that is exactly why we do experiments. We need only look at the definition of MDR throughout this thread: MDR is the way our minds make sense of our perceptions and thoughts, and since our minds do it, what we do depends on our minds. If we do it scientifically, we are building a scientific MDR, which is the only kind this forum cares about. We call the sense that we make "reality" when it exhibits certain consistencies we decide, based on evidence, rise to that standard, and it is our minds that make that distinction. Hence, how we accomplish our mission depends on our minds, and our ability to perceive and create thoughts about those perceptions. Along the way of building this MDR, we invoke many important scientific tools, all of which we have evidence work toward this goal. These tools include idealization, unification, measurement, mathematics, logic, and testing of hypotheses. In short, the tool is the scientific method, we build a scientific MDR by using the scientific method. As a result, we constantly doubt, not believe in, our MDR, and we constantly test it because we doubt it. And we find that what we have created works for us in objectively demonstrable and evidence-based ways. Or we do none of those things-- we may choose to use faith-based belief instead. I am not talking about the latter, I am talking about the former: building an account of reality based on evidence, in a way that depends on our minds. BUt notice one crucial thing: the two elements that I never invoked in this description, because I never needed to, are "belief" and "MIR."
    Last edited by Ken G; 2014-May-22 at 05:08 PM.

  19. #1549
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    You agreed that MDR is purely a mental model feed by our sense, and extended by our tools. In that case, what according to you is it measuring? What is it a model of?
    I have no idea, because I have no evidence I can use to answer that question. I know that the reason you believe in MIR is because it answers that question for you. I know that other people believe in other things because it answers other questions for them. I am not talking about questions that people find answers they like by using faith, I am talking about the questions that evidence can address, the questions that science can address, and the one you just asked is not one of those.

  20. #1550
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Every experiment we do can falsify our MDR, pick any at all-- that is exactly why we do experiments.
    You're conflating two different things here, "our MDR" in the sense of our current model of reality (ie GR, QM, ...) which obviously can be falsified by experiments, and "MDR" as a general ontology. You've claimed that MDR as an ontology was falsifiable.

  21. #1551
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    You're conflating two different things here, "our MDR" in the sense of our current model of reality (ie GR, QM, ...) which obviously can be falsified by experiments, and "MDR" as a general ontology. You've claimed that MDR as an ontology was falsifiable.
    The words "MDR as a general ontology" do not make sense. Any given MDR, including our best current effort, is an ontology. The MDR concept itself is not an ontology, it is an organizational concept for talking about how we develop ontologies. When we do science, we test hypotheses, we do not test the hypothesis concept. But we notice that science works, we have evidence that it works. That is our test of the organizational principle for creating ontologies that we call the scientific method, and results in the building of a scientific MDR.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2014-May-22 at 05:25 PM.

  22. #1552
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I have no idea what you mean by "MDR as a general ontology", that phrase makes no sense to me. Any given MDR, including our best current effort, is an ontology. The MDR concept itself is not an ontology, it is an organizational concept for talking about how we develop ontologies. When we do science, we test hypotheses, we do not test the hypothesis concept.
    MDR as an ontology in the sense of being a generic explanation for the relation between mind and reality independently of what specific form that relation may take at different times. Perhaps call it a "prescription for ontologies" if you will. It is the generic statement positing the dependence relation "reality depends on mind", no matter what instance it may be (our current physical theories, newtonian ones, or whatever).

    ETA: the difference here is between MDR and MIR, both are independent of the specific form of reality, they are generic prescriptions (contradictory dependence relations between reality and mind).
    Last edited by caveman1917; 2014-May-22 at 05:29 PM.

  23. #1553
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I have no idea, because I have no evidence I can use to answer that question. I know that the reason you believe in MIR is because it answers that question for you. I know that other people believe in other things because it answers other questions for them. I am not talking about questions that people find answers they like by using faith, I am talking about the questions that evidence can address, the questions that science can address, and the one you just asked is not one of those.
    But do you agree it is measuring, modeling something? A model has to be a model of something. What then?

  24. #1554
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,733
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    You said practically the same thing. You said one had to come up with a scientific reason to reject it. It is ridiculous to even consider it worthy of rejection.


    Don't follow you. How can memories be intact and it be difficult to judge the passage of time? If it is a dream state, the dream is not static. Time passes in the dream, perhaps at another speed granted, but still passes. Or are you only seeing a frozen image? I don't know what kind of abnormal state you are referring to, but if it is a coma, trance, or whatever, it is an abnormal state. Are you saying hallucinations can be regarded as real?
    Oh no, I am talking about the state which as far as I know is equivalent to a meditative state but achieved physiologically by floating in a float tank. It is not coma, is is not sleep although you can sleep, you do not hallucinate. The set up is designed to minimise sensory input, it's dark etc. You can be alone with your self and your mind, memories, but with no inputs. In that state you cannot judge the passage of time.
    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

  25. #1555
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Right, it's all about the weighing of evidence, and unifying and accounting for that evidence, that is all the exclusive role of the MDR. Nothing else does those things, not belief, not MIR. That's what the evidence says anyway, and in 52 pages no one has cited a single shred of evidence that this is not true. Why that fact doesn't speak for itself is beyond me.
    Agreed, it seems starting from different premises makes it hard to shift position. MDR is evidence based and tested, MIR is faith based and a belief that cannot be tested. Everything in MDR can be tested by experiment. How many ways can we say the same simple statements.?
    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

  26. #1556
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,733
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    But do you agree it is measuring, modeling something? A model has to be a model of something. What then?
    The mind model is what you make of your sensory inputs and conscious and subconscious thinking processes. You start from nothing as a baby and accumulate your mind model as experience continues. If you tend toward science you learn how experiment has forced us into the theories we have. At some point, it seems, your mind starts to make assumptions about how you came to be. Beliefs begin to form. It is demonstrable from this thread that beliefs can be very hard to accept as beliefs as opposed to evidence that can be tested.
    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. #1557
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Agreed, it seems starting from different premises makes it hard to shift position. MDR is evidence based and tested, MIR is faith based and a belief that cannot be tested. Everything in MDR can be tested by experiment. How many ways can we say the same simple statements.?
    A lot of ways, still doesn't make it true though. Not even sure how you'd arrive at a statement that "MDR can be tested but MIR not", it's clearly false. In as much as testing means testing a specific instance of it, as Ken seems to imply, both can do that equally well. You both seem to be conflating testing a specific theory with testing a philosphical stance as to where that theory originates (mind or independent reality).

  28. #1558
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    But do you agree it is measuring, modeling something? A model has to be a model of something. What then?
    No one has any idea, of course. Do you think you have a better idea of the answer of that question, simply because you have chosen to believe in an MIR? No, you don't, you just have a choice of a belief. I do not choose to believe that, there is no additional knowledge conveyed to you by your choice.

  29. #1559
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,819
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    MDR as an ontology in the sense of being a generic explanation for the relation between mind and reality independently of what specific form that relation may take at different times.
    That's not what an ontology is, and ontology is a specific claim on the existence of something. In science, an ontology is a claim that something exists based on the demonstrated fact that it conveys conceptual efficacy, it is not an actual claim that something exists in some MIR. If science were the latter, it would have a simply awful track record, but fortunately it is not that, and has a very good track record instead.

    But how is any of this relevant? I can test my MDR, that is all I need to say, that is all I have claimed and all I have evidence to support.
    [qoute] Perhaps call it a "prescription for ontologies" if you will. [/quote]That works fine for me.
    It is the generic statement positing the dependence relation "reality depends on mind", no matter what instance it may be (our current physical theories, newtonian ones, or whatever).
    It does not posit that reality depends on mind, it simply notices the evidence that what we mean by reality depends on what we mean by our minds. It is the language that we can talk coherently about our process of understanding nature.
    ETA: the difference here is between MDR and MIR, both are independent of the specific form of reality, they are generic prescriptions (contradictory dependence relations between reality and mind).
    And the question we must then ask is, what do we mean when we talk about reality? So indeed, ask that. Look at what people mean when they invoke the reality concept, I've given tons of concrete examples already.

  30. #1560
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    And the question we must then ask is, what do we mean when we talk about reality?
    I was going to ask you to define "reality", but it seems that MDR (and MIR) are already essentially answers to that question, so the more relevant question would be to ask for a definition of "mind".

Posting Permissions

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