Page 431 of 447 FirstFirst ... 331381421429430431432433441 ... LastLast
Results 12,901 to 12,930 of 13405

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #12901
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Sensing means seeing and feeling warmth.
    Special pleading for agreement here!
    I can feel all of that without spending a split second even thinking about the sun!

  2. #12902
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    there is nothing simple about seeing. Once light enters the retina, it's neurons all the way but the image we see is actually more complex than the data capacity of the optic nerve so our brain fills in detail from memory or from processing based on previous successful algorithms. In our mind we see therefore a manufactured image. All this is a model of how it works accepted by science. But we cannot know if it is not a complete illusion, we generally assume our images represent reality because they are our reality.
    It is only complicated because you make it complicated. Forget the MDR model for this example. We see the sun. That is all. It is an external object.

  3. #12903
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Special pleading for agreement here!
    I can feel all of that without spending a split second even thinking about the sun!
    You do not have to think about the sun. You sense it.

  4. #12904
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    By what standard (or opinion)?
    By just letting things happen, without building complex models on how we do it.

  5. #12905
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Simple: they see what everybody sees: the sun. What is so complicated?
    Special pleading for agreement again .. with not even supporting reasoning ..

    I'm not mind reader .. neither were the two dudes ... and they could've seen a lot more .. Your argument assumes nothing else of note is even distinguishable from the sun by these two apparent mind readers.

  6. #12906
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    What is so complicated about looking at the sun?

  7. #12907
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    It is only complicated because you make it complicated. Forget the MDR model for this example. We see the sun. That is all. It is an external object.
    you are being very unscientific about this. As I said above, my simplified explanation shows seeing is a complex process where the brain does the interpretation. That's true of all our images. It's not about whether we all have an image of the sun but the problem about knowing the nature of the object we assume to be there. The exact nature is an image created by our brain. the cause can be dreamed up in a thousand ways and to test between those thousand ways is absolutely impossible because we only have our minds to use.
    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. #12908
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    you are being very unscientific about this. As I said above, my simplified explanation shows seeing is a complex process where the brain does the interpretation. That's true of all our images. It's not about whether we all have an image of the sun but the problem about knowing the nature of the object we assume to be there. The exact nature is an image created by our brain. the cause can be dreamed up in a thousand ways and to test between those thousand ways is absolutely impossible because we only have our minds to use.
    If we did not have a mind, we would be a rock. A rock would not see anything. The nature of the sun is irrelevant in the context of what I am talking about. The sun is an external object which we detect. Its attributes are a product of the mind, but its existence is not.

  9. #12909
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I didn't decide to appear to have sense organs.
    No one, ever, even once, suggested that you decided to appear to have sense organs. So why do you think that comment is even the teeniest bit relevant to this thread? Read what is actually being said. You decided to create a model that you have sense organs, using your brain, and the model you created depended on your brain. Then you tested the model, and your brain liked it. The role of your brain is completely clear, just look.
    It's something I became aware of.
    Now you are describing your belief system. But you have no evidence for that claim, and you never test it. You test models. There is a spectacular amount of evidence in support of that claim!
    An external world to be sensed and evolution by natural selection seems like a good explanation. Is there a better one?
    And now you are describing the common MDR. You just choose to believe it is an MIR! Look at your own logic. It comes out: "Because my model is the best one around, it must be the MIR." That doesn't follow.

  10. #12910
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,790
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The sun is an external object which we detect.
    That is the MDR our minds have created and tested, and judged good. There is nothing about MDR the precludes any of the words you just used.
    Its attributes are a product of the mind, but its existence is not.
    This is the version of MIR where, when you strip it of all its mind-dependent aspects, leaves nothing to test, and nothing for science to care about.

  11. #12911
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That is the MDR our minds have created and tested, and judged good. There is nothing about MDR the precludes any of the words you just used.This is the version of MIR where, when you strip it of all its mind-dependent aspects, leaves nothing to test, and nothing for science to care about.
    How can our minds create without input?

  12. #12912
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    How can our minds create without input?
    that is in a way a separate question. We know our minds and brains develop from inside the womb through infant stages and we know inputs are essential. For example I heard to day how an ancient experiment showed that without touch babies die before they can speak. I presume the interoceptive system needs inputs to develop and is then essential to life. The second part of that is memory, we remember in at least two ways we remember as a pattern in neuron connection and secondly is physical structure of the neurons too. we could add chemical cellular memory too. But the fact remains that the developing brain only has neurons firing to do all of this. The neuron firing is the phenomena the brain has and it builds its models from those alone. It has no route to the outside apart. So from first principles the brain cannot tell the origin except by making a model that makes sense as a predictive and helpful survival model. When alone in the dark silence our mind does not shut down for lack of input, it calls upon its inner resources to think, solve problems and indeed dream. This is further evidence. Our whole experience is mind based.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  13. #12913
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    If we did not have a mind, we would be a rock. A rock would not see anything. The nature of the sun is irrelevant in the context of what I am talking about. The sun is an external object which we detect. Its attributes are a product of the mind, but its existence is not.
    you know the Magritte picture of a pipe with the words (translated) " this is not a pipe" does the pipe exist?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  14. #12914
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    there is nothing simple about seeing. Once light enters the retina, it's neurons all the way but the image we see is actually more complex than the data capacity of the optic nerve so our brain fills in detail from memory or from processing based on previous successful algorithms. In our mind we see therefore a manufactured image. All this is a model of how it works accepted by science. But we cannot know if it is not a complete illusion, we generally assume our images represent reality because they are our reality.
    And how a dog, insect or octopus perceive the sun is alien to humans. So once again, defining reality is complex. One first has to decide which type of reality one is defining.
    Consequently any MIR must be all things to all observers, which cannot be defined in a scientific way, which further leads us to the question of belief.
    Last edited by headrush; 2019-Jul-18 at 02:46 PM. Reason: Change You to One, less personal.

  15. #12915
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    you know the Magritte picture of a pipe with the words (translated) " this is not a pipe" does the pipe exist?
    The name tag is unimportant. The object is all that matters.

  16. #12916
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    And how a dog, insect or octopus perceive the sun is alien to humans. So once again, defining reality is complex. One first has to decide which type of reality one is defining.
    Consequently any MIR must be all things to all observers, which cannot be defined in a scientific way, which further leads us to the question of belief.
    All that matters is that the creatures perceive the sun.

  17. #12917
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    All that matters is that the creatures perceive the sun.
    Ah, so it appears you are creating a MIR inside your own MDR.
    "matters", "perceive", "sun" are all terms used within MDR to create and define models.
    Whatever phenomenon you are attempting to describe has to be held within the mind. Whether it physically exists or not, it cannot be defined without MDR.
    MIR cannot be described as there are no terms available. MIR is a ghost, an idea.

  18. #12918
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    Ah, so it appears you are creating a MIR inside your own MDR.
    "matters", "perceive", "sun" are all terms used within MDR to create and define models.
    Whatever phenomenon you are attempting to describe has to be held within the mind. Whether it physically exists or not, it cannot be defined without MDR.
    MIR cannot be described as there are no terms available. MIR is a ghost, an idea.
    So if you depart from the point of view that any verbalization is MDR, well then you are locked in. However, I can do all the actions without describing them verbally and detect the sun.

  19. #12919
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    So if you depart from the point of view that any verbalization is MDR, well then you are locked in. However, I can do all the actions without describing them verbally and detect the sun.
    which part of your mind detects the sun? yet your mind is involved, yet not involved since it's inside your skull, yet you know what you see, because it's tucked in there inside your mind.
    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

  20. #12920
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    which part of your mind detects the sun? yet your mind is involved, yet not involved since it's inside your skull, yet you know what you see, because it's tucked in there inside your mind.
    I know what I see, but it is not tucked in my mind. An image forms in my mind, but the source is external.

  21. #12921
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I know what I see, but it is not tucked in my mind. An image forms in my mind, but the source is external.
    Of dear, you are not alone in that belief but you have not yet realised it is a belief. Even if you say there must be a source, you do not admit that you cannot test the true nature of the source without using your mind. All your ideas are mind based. Your experience of being alive is mind based. Grasping to the word "external" covers everything because your mind is internal. Your reality in internal but modelled as external. It is as basic as "there must be life after death because I am alive now and I have a concept of death which runs against my survival skills." You are saying "there must be an external source because I have an internal model which I like."
    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

  22. #12922
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Of dear, you are not alone in that belief but you have not yet realised it is a belief. Even if you say there must be a source, you do not admit that you cannot test the true nature of the source without using your mind. All your ideas are mind based. Your experience of being alive is mind based. Grasping to the word "external" covers everything because your mind is internal. Your reality in internal but modelled as external. It is as basic as "there must be life after death because I am alive now and I have a concept of death which runs against my survival skills." You are saying "there must be an external source because I have an internal model which I like."
    This is a stacked deck: you apriori exclude the usage of the mind. You call anything the mind comes up with as a belief. Nice situation: I can not discuss because I am using my mind. So, according to you, everything is the product of the mind? There is nothing out there? Just the fact that I need to use my senses and mind to interpret the world, does not mean it is all a product of my mind.

  23. #12923
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    No one, ever, even once, suggested that you decided to appear to have sense organs. So why do you think that comment is even the teeniest bit relevant to this thread? Read what is actually being said. You decided to create a model that you have sense organs, using your brain, and the model you created depended on your brain. Then you tested the model, and your brain liked it. The role of your brain is completely clear, just look.Now you are describing your belief system. But you have no evidence for that claim, and you never test it. You test models. There is a spectacular amount of evidence in support of that claim!
    And now you are describing the common MDR. You just choose to believe it is an MIR! Look at your own logic. It comes out: "Because my model is the best one around, it must be the MIR." That doesn't follow.
    Nice strawman argument. We should start a Strawman Hall of Fame just to have a place to put it.

    What I'm trying to ask is why my mental model of myself has sense organs? In the MIR world they'd evolve because they'd gather information from the world beyond the mind that would be useful for survival. But in the MDR world they'd be useless since the only information is already in the mind. So why does my mental model have them? I didn't ask for them or design them. I'm just aware of them.

    I don't really expect a useful answer. I'm just posting in case any other readers are interested in other opinions.

  24. #12924
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Nice strawman argument. We should start a Strawman Hall of Fame just to have a place to put it.

    What I'm trying to ask is why my mental model of myself has sense organs? In the MIR world they'd evolve because they'd gather information from the world beyond the mind that would be useful for survival. But in the MDR world they'd be useless since the only information is already in the mind. So why does my mental model have them? I didn't ask for them or design them. I'm just aware of them.

    I don't really expect a useful answer. I'm just posting in case any other readers are interested in other opinions.
    I don't think anyone is denying that you and we have sense organs. The point we're trying to make is that you only know they are sense organs because of your mind. When you are a new born baby, you have all these organs but you don't have a developed mind. Your brain receives inputs but they are initially uncategorized as to source. It's only with further development, especially language, that concepts take on definite forms.

    I think a major sticking point in this discussion is that some of us are trying to define reality and where it originates, while others are taking the concept of reality as a given and applying it to the non-human universe. As I tried to point out earlier, there are as many realities as there are observers. The "external" phenomena "exist" but are defined by the version of reality experienced by the specific observer. Humans, for instance, cannot detect very low frequencies. As far as our reality is concerned they do not exist. But a whale experiences a different reality and can hear those sounds.

    Whose "reality" is correct?

  25. #12925
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Nice strawman argument. We should start a Strawman Hall of Fame just to have a place to put it.

    What I'm trying to ask is why my mental model of myself has sense organs? In the MIR world they'd evolve because they'd gather information from the world beyond the mind that would be useful for survival. But in the MDR world they'd be useless since the only information is already in the mind. So why does my mental model have them? I didn't ask for them or design them. I'm just aware of them.

    I don't really expect a useful answer. I'm just posting in case any other readers are interested in other opinions.
    This post is not specifically in response to Chuck's above post, but when folk start making accusations of 'strawman arguments', they need an update/reminder of what this thread is all about from those who have been involved in it since its origination .. Its not easily readable because of its sheer size, so I offer this as a rough revision of what this thread is about ..

    See here for the revised hypothesis:
    http://www.forum.cosmoquest.org/show...78#post2313178

    I'll also quote it below for convenience:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G
    It looks like the people who don't understand just aren't going to. Does anyone who does understand have any other lingering issues? Here is what I would argue has been quite conclusively established by scientific evidence (and no resort to any metaphysical principles or assumptions):

    1) science only demonstrably deals in a version of reality that is mind dependent, and it only needs that concept of reality to function (where by a mind-dependent concept of reality, I mean a recognition that the goal of science is to use our minds to make sense of our perceptions, with no requirement whatsoever for any part of that process to be independent of our minds, or any need to imagine that the process "refers to" anything mind independent).

    2) understanding the mind dependence of scientific theories is helpful in better understanding those theories, and avoiding misconceptions that lead to questions of the form "is reality such-and-such?" When one understands the MDR concept, one instead asks "what conceptual advantages or predictive power do we obtain by building models with the attribute such-and-such?"

    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.

    4) claims that realism is a "no-miracles" philosophy, or that it in any way predicts or explains any scientific discovery, has no evidential basis at all. Instead, realism is just something that people like to believe. Indeed the most naive version of realism, that what exists independently of our minds is nevertheless faithfully reported and understood by our minds, is the most blatant example of a miracle-based philosophy that I can think of.
    Last edited by Selfsim; 2019-Jul-19 at 08:10 AM.

  26. #12926
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    This is a stacked deck: you apriori exclude the usage of the mind. You call anything the mind comes up with as a belief. Nice situation: I can not discuss because I am using my mind. So, according to you, everything is the product of the mind? There is nothing out there? Just the fact that I need to use my senses and mind to interpret the world, does not mean it is all a product of my mind.
    No that's not it. Knowledge is where we test our models and get good prediction power. Our brain does that from infancy but we forget the early stages. The belief is where we assume our models, which are our personal reality, are the external reality. That's the part we cannot test because every test is using our mind so all we test is our mind model. So we cannot know that final step and in science we keep finding evidence that our past model was actually breaking down at some detail level so we come up with a better predictive model. We should never therefore say, that's it, we know how it works, because we don't, we have an improving model and various personal beliefs which remain untestable. Some are the cause of conflict between people so this issue is important.
    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. #12927
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    No that's not it. Knowledge is where we test our models and get good prediction power. Our brain does that from infancy but we forget the early stages. The belief is where we assume our models, which are our personal reality, are the external reality. That's the part we cannot test because every test is using our mind so all we test is our mind model. So we cannot know that final step and in science we keep finding evidence that our past model was actually breaking down at some detail level so we come up with a better predictive model. We should never therefore say, that's it, we know how it works, because we don't, we have an improving model and various personal beliefs which remain untestable. Some are the cause of conflict between people so this issue is important.
    So if I step in front of a speeding car, it is all in my mind and I have nothing to worry about? Yeah, before anyone says anything this is my old tiger argument I know.. If my model can get me killed, what is doing the killing: my mind or an external force?

  28. #12928
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    This post is not specifically in response to Chuck's above post, but when folk start making accusations of 'strawman arguments', they need an update/reminder of what this thread is all about from those who have been involved in it since its origination .. Its not easily readable because of its sheer size, so I offer this as a rough revision of what this thread is about ..

    See here for the revised hypothesis:
    http://www.forum.cosmoquest.org/show...78#post2313178

    I'll also quote it below for convenience:
    I have no problem with this statement.

  29. #12929
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    270
    You say you have no problem with that statement and yet you say this :

    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    So if I step in front of a speeding car, it is all in my mind and I have nothing to worry about? Yeah, before
    anyone says anything this is my old tiger argument I know.. If my model can get me killed, what is doing the killing: my mind or an external force?
    Perhaps you should reread point 3 in that thread summary.

  30. #12930
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    So if I step in front of a speeding car, it is all in my mind and I have nothing to worry about? Yeah, before anyone says anything this is my old tiger argument I know.. If my model can get me killed, what is doing the killing: my mind or an external force?
    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.

Posting Permissions

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