Page 434 of 446 FirstFirst ... 334384424432433434435436444 ... LastLast
Results 12,991 to 13,020 of 13370

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #12991
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Because the first part of what you said: 'the same scientific justification for a wider universe existing outside of our current visible universe', is entirely the subject of our current cosmological model, which was developed by (hundreds .. maybe millions?) of human minds (there's abundant evidence of that). And there's nothing supporting anything in that model being independent of those minds.

    Causality is a mind concept (model) also and there is nothing in the (math articulated) cosmological model that necessarily prescribes that a cause (or 'source') must precede an effect (or 'sink').
    The model is certainly dependent on those minds, but how about the source?

  2. #12992
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,305
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The model is certainly dependent on those minds, but how about the source?
    I'd (of course) have to say that in our case, the effect is perceived before the modelled cause is ..

  3. #12993
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    I'd (of course) have to say that in our case, the effect is perceived before the modelled cause is ..
    Which implies what exactly?

  4. #12994
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The model is certainly dependent on those minds, but how about the source?
    The source is the source. It is impossible to describe it without making a MDR model of it. It exists, but we can only model it to try and make sense of it. That's why we have theories that are subject to modification as better models arise. No model of any complexity can be described as fact beyond all argument. So a MIR is forever beyond reach, a mirage. That is if you use the word reality to mean the ultimate in fact.

  5. #12995
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,305
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Which implies what exactly?
    That a mind is still required to perceive an effect and model a cause (with no evidence for anything required independently of a mind for any of that).

    (I'll go one step further and say that the requirement that there be a cause preceding every effect, is the brain's hippocampus at work .. creating its context of time to facilitate meaning, with my pointing back to the presentation links I posted previously, as evidence for this).

  6. #12996
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,713
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    And what if we just say we are a tiny part of a larger existence which we model into MDR? Leaving away the term MIR.
    Why even say so much? Let's just say "Our MDR is incomplete." Is the way you put it saying anything more that can be tested than just that?

    Indeed, I would expect that our MDR will always be incomplete, and even more, it is always intended to be incomplete. It's a feature, not a bug-- our minds are limited, and there's not much point in making models that we ourselves cannot even understand. (Indeed, we already make models that most of us cannot understand-- talk about the obvious mind dependence of the reality concept as used by a theoretical physicist.)

    The model is certainly dependent on those minds, but how about the source?
    To answer that, wouldn't I have to know what you mean by your words, "the source"? And to know what you mean by those words, don't I have to look into your mind to some degree? I mean, I could use my own meaning of "the source," but then:
    1) I wouldn't know if I was answering the same question you are asking, and
    2) what I mean by the source is all part of my MDR, it's just how I frame the connections between the various other models I have put in my MDR (which are contextual and provisional, in the sense that I use different models in different situations and I expect them all to break down somewhere, even the model that is the connection between the models that I regard as "the source" or "the reason my models work at all.") So taking my meaning, I would answer your question like this: what I mean by the source also depends on my mind.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Jul-30 at 11:59 PM.

  7. #12997
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Because the first part of what you said: 'the same scientific justification for a wider universe existing outside of our current visible universe', is entirely the subject of our current cosmological model, which was developed by (hundreds .. maybe millions?) of human minds (there's abundant evidence of that). And there's nothing supporting anything in that model being independent of those minds.

    Causality is a mind concept (model) also and there is nothing in the (math articulated) cosmological model that necessarily prescribes that a cause (or 'source') must precede an effect (or 'sink').
    The scientific MDR is the best our minds can come up with at the present time, our history is full of prior scientific MDR's and most are different to those preceding them in discernable ways. All of these scientific MDR's aspire to be something that none of them actually are which can be called the MIR.
    Last edited by LaurieAG; 2019-Jul-31 at 05:04 AM.

  8. #12998
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,713
    Yet we can also recognize that it was always a mistake to maintain that an MDR "aspires to" being an MIR. There's no need to frame the scientific endeavor as a constant and colossal failure. That was never actually the way science works, and is probably the leading misconception that has surrounded the whole endeavor since its inception. The problem with the misconception is that it keeps causing us to say silly things like "we used to think X was true, but we now know that Y is true." As if that statement wasn't said by the "X" people also! But a correct understanding of what science actually does is simply "today's models are superior for reasons A and B". It really just comes down to understanding what a model is-- and what it isn't.

  9. #12999
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    To answer that, wouldn't I have to know what you mean by your words, "the source"? And to know what you mean by those words, don't I have to look into your mind to some degree? I mean, I could use my own meaning of "the source," but then:
    1) I wouldn't know if I was answering the same question you are asking, and
    2) what I mean by the source is all part of my MDR, it's just how I frame the connections between the various other models I have put in my MDR (which are contextual and provisional, in the sense that I use different models in different situations and I expect them all to break down somewhere, even the model that is the connection between the models that I regard as "the source" or "the reason my models work at all.") So taking my meaning, I would answer your question like this: what I mean by the source also depends on my mind.
    The source quite simply is all outside of our mind which stimulates it into creating models-

  10. #13000
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    The source is the source. It is impossible to describe it without making a MDR model of it. It exists, but we can only model it to try and make sense of it. That's why we have theories that are subject to modification as better models arise. No model of any complexity can be described as fact beyond all argument. So a MIR is forever beyond reach, a mirage. That is if you use the word reality to mean the ultimate in fact.
    All I have beem trying to say is that the source is external to the mind.

  11. #13001
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    All I have beem trying to say is that the source is external to the mind.
    Of course it is. No one has said otherwise.

  12. #13002
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    Of course it is. No one has said otherwise.
    That is not my understanding.

  13. #13003
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    That is not my understanding.
    Apparently so.
    You appear to be stuck on the difference between
    a) MIR not being testable and therefore being based on belief

    and

    b) there being nothing out there at all.

    The whole argument revolves around (a),

    No-one suggests (b) at all

    I think you do understand and probably agree. It's only logical.

  14. #13004
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,472
    What if I tested something in the past but have forgotten about it? Is it now tested MIR?

  15. #13005
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    What if I tested something in the past but have forgotten about it? Is it now tested MIR?
    No, because its impossible to test MIR. The very act of devising a test makes it a MDR model.

  16. #13006
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,472
    It was MDR when it was being tested, but since I've forgotten about it, it's now MIR.

  17. #13007
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,607
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    All I have beem trying to say is that the source is external to the mind.
    I'm back, and here we are again, you state as a knowledge what we say is a belief and just repeat. knowledge can be tested. Whatever your idea of a source is, it is a belief you hold. Everything is in 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

  18. #13008
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I'm back, and here we are again, you state as a knowledge what we say is a belief and just repeat. knowledge can be tested. Whatever your idea of a source is, it is a belief you hold. Everything is in mind.
    I don't agree.
    We explain our experiences of reality using models (MDR)
    Those experiences have external stimuli which we cannot describe without using MDR
    Therefore we can logically only refer to those external stimuli via belief, which is MIR
    MDR does not say that there are no externalities, only that we cannot test them without resorting to MDR.

    By saying everything is in mind you are causing confusion, almost as if we are discussing the world of the Matrix. As I understand things, MDR does not make that claim.

  19. #13009
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I'm back, and here we are again, you state as a knowledge what we say is a belief and just repeat. knowledge can be tested. Whatever your idea of a source is, it is a belief you hold. Everything is in mind.
    What I am saying is that we build MDR from a source external to the mind. I am saying the mind does not create MDR without an external stimulus.

  20. #13010
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,713
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The source quite simply is all outside of our mind which stimulates it into creating models-
    That doesn't sound like a model to you? It sure does to me, it's a very common model that we basically all use, but it's also a vague model. Vagueness is useful because it is more all-encompassing, but it's much harder to test a vague model because its predictions are vague too. Also, there are some elements of that model that are rather extraneous, like the idea that there's anything "mind independent" about that model. The dichotomy between what is "internal" to us and what is "external" to us is all part of our MDR, and I couldn't for the life of me anticipate a single prediction that is added to the model by claiming any aspect of it involves "mind independence." For example, you can't say "the mind independent aspects of what I mean by external sources predicts that we will all perceive the same thing," because we don't, the model would fail that test. And you can't say "the mind independent aspects of my model predicts that we will perceive different things based on our differences in how we think and perceive", because that's already a prediction of the MDR approach, so one doesn't need to add any MIR elements to get that. This is the core issue with MIR thinking, it has to be so devoid of predictive power that there is essentially zero scientific usefulness to the entire exercise. We do experience similarities of perception, that's clear, and we also experience differences (possibly much greater differences than we even imagine). Can we test where those similarities come from? Well, the more similar the minds, the fewer the differences. That's what MDR already says, we don't need to add anything to it to get that same prediction.
    I am saying the mind does not create MDR without an external stimulus.
    And what I'm saying is that you are describing your model of how to account for the stimulus we receive, your model says that stimulus is "external." Even our own best theories already tell us that "external" is an artificial element of a model. For example, our best models of electrons tell us they are all indistinguishable and share a universal wave function as a result of being indistinguishable, so there are no electrons that are really "inside us" or "outside us", that's just how we choose to think about them because it's convenient to do so. Now your mind can reject that model, even though it is by far our best model of electrons, but in so doing, all you do is establish the truth of the MDR hypothesis-- your mind picks and chooses the version of "reality" that it wishes to believe is the "external source" of our stimulus.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Aug-01 at 03:25 AM.

  21. #13011
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    419
    It's really funny that 100 years or so after relativity came into general acceptance it appears that absolutism is coming back into vogue. Or is it just another cycle where the scientific MDR stagnates and then starts renewing and growing in a different direction and the absolutism is just a standard response to try to counter the change.

    But don't look back, 'god' doesn't suffer causality but us mere mortals are stuck with it.

  22. #13012
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That doesn't sound like a model to you? It sure does to me, it's a very common model that we basically all use, but it's also a vague model. Vagueness is useful because it is more all-encompassing, but it's much harder to test a vague model because its predictions are vague too. Also, there are some elements of that model that are rather extraneous, like the idea that there's anything "mind independent" about that model. The dichotomy between what is "internal" to us and what is "external" to us is all part of our MDR, and I couldn't for the life of me anticipate a single prediction that is added to the model by claiming any aspect of it involves "mind independence." For example, you can't say "the mind independent aspects of what I mean by external sources predicts that we will all perceive the same thing," because we don't, the model would fail that test. And you can't say "the mind independent aspects of my model predicts that we will perceive different things based on our differences in how we think and perceive", because that's already a prediction of the MDR approach, so one doesn't need to add any MIR elements to get that. This is the core issue with MIR thinking, it has to be so devoid of predictive power that there is essentially zero scientific usefulness to the entire exercise. We do experience similarities of perception, that's clear, and we also experience differences (possibly much greater differences than we even imagine). Can we test where those similarities come from? Well, the more similar the minds, the fewer the differences. That's what MDR already says, we don't need to add anything to it to get that same prediction.And what I'm saying is that you are describing your model of how to account for the stimulus we receive, your model says that stimulus is "external." Even our own best theories already tell us that "external" is an artificial element of a model. For example, our best models of electrons tell us they are all indistinguishable and share a universal wave function as a result of being indistinguishable, so there are no electrons that are really "inside us" or "outside us", that's just how we choose to think about them because it's convenient to do so. Now your mind can reject that model, even though it is by far our best model of electrons, but in so doing, all you do is establish the truth of the MDR hypothesis-- your mind picks and chooses the version of "reality" that it wishes to believe is the "external source" of our stimulus.
    I wonder if we are just misunderstanding each other. I will try again.
    Forgetting for the moment the realm of the subatomic particles and just restricting ourselves to our macro world: trees, cars, tigers, stars, etc.: Our senses perceive these objects and our mind models them. Some, like cars and tigers are potentially dangerous to our existence. These objects are external sources and our mind interprets them in the context of our sensorial equipment. Are you saying they are not really outside us?

  23. #13013
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,472
    I think he's saying that the claim that there's something outside us is untestable, not that we know there's not.

  24. #13014
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,713
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Forgetting for the moment the realm of the subatomic particles and just restricting ourselves to our macro world: trees, cars, tigers, stars, etc.:
    So the reality you are talking about isn't what actually is, it must be restricted to the "macro world"? Your macro reality isn't composed of the micro reality? Because in most people's MDR, what is big is built from what is small, so they aren't allowed to say what is big exists and what is small doesn't.
    Our senses perceive these objects and our mind models them.
    So our senses perceive objects, is that what our senses do? Because I don't think I'm perceiving objects, I think I am perceiving sights and sounds and touches, and I take those perceptions and make models in order to make sense of them. One of those models is the concept of an "object." But since "an object" is demonstrably just a model, I expect the concept to break down at some point. Which it does. It's true that our physics has only known the limitations of the concept of "an object" for about 100 years now, but sure enough, we do live in the time when we have discovered the limitation of that concept. But despite our privilege of living in that time, some of us can still simply discard that knowledge by saying "forget that realm." Others of us cannot arbitrarily remember or forget what they choose, we are stuck with the MDR that fits all the knowledge we have. And so we can see that an "object" is a model. It's a model of what is the source of other models. And yes, a model can be a source, because a "source" is also a model.
    Are you saying they are not really outside us?
    I'm saying they are models, and models exist in our heads. But part of the model is the very concept of "existence," and our models say that what we mean by "cars and tigers" do what we mean by "exist." We find the models can save our lives, so we like the models, but that's all-- we test the models and find they do for us what we set out for them, and nothing more.

  25. #13015
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I think he's saying that the claim that there's something outside us is untestable, not that we know there's not.
    Yes, and indeed to the extent that it is testable (which it is to some degree and we test it every day, but not that there's any "mind independent" quality), we are doing what we always do-- testing a model. That's the logical inconsistency of gzhpcu's position, he wants to claim that he has tested his model that macroscopic "external objects" exist, but he doesn't want to recognize that it's a model at all. What else can be tested but a model? That's all we could ever test. And the process of making a model, the process of interpreting perceptions, and the process of judging the model good, are all demonstrably mind-dependent activities, that very different minds do very differently-- and are doing so all around us every day, coming to very different conclusions about what is real.

    So all I'm saying is, the scientist must stop pretending these facts are not facts, simply because we prefer to imagine that we live in an MIR. We must look at the evidence and stop pretending that what we mean by the "R" in MIR isn't having a little fight with what we mean by the "MI." That's what doesn't test out well at all, because here we have gzhpcu's mind that says forget about the quantum realm, and we have some theoretical physicists' minds that say forget about the illusions of the macro realm that we build from incomplete perceptions of the quantum realm. And then we have the minds of dogs and cats who have no idea what we mean by any of our words and models. MDRs all around us, but some choose to believe that "tigers and cars" exist independently of their minds.

    And in hearing that, those same people will create the false dichotomy that either tigers and cars exist, or they are figments of our imagination. This leaves out what tests out well: they are words that we use to label concepts that underpin models that we find test out well if we don't push them too far. But we still have no idea what "really exists" when ten different slightly different minds think tigers and cars are ten slightly different things, and ten very different minds think they are ten very different things.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Aug-01 at 07:55 AM.

  26. #13016
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,305
    As a slight aside, I note that gzhpcu first engaged in this thread, on this very same issue, on Sept 13, 2014.

    Its coming up to five whole years, 13016 posts, and yet still no change in thinking ..

    It doesn't get much more 'different' in mindset, in that regard, than that!

  27. #13017
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    As a slight aside, I note that gzhpcu first engaged in this thread, on this very same issue, on Sept 13, 2014.

    Its coming up to five whole years, 13016 posts, and yet still no change in thinking ..

    It doesn't get much more 'different' in mindset, in that regard, than that!
    Aye, more fool me.
    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. #13018
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,472
    Maybe we evolved in a mind independent reality so natural selection chose minds that believed in it, like it chose sense organs to gather information from it.

  29. #13019
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    So the reality you are talking about isn't what actually is, it must be restricted to the "macro world"? Your macro reality isn't composed of the micro reality? Because in most people's MDR, what is big is built from what is small, so they aren't allowed to say what is big exists and what is small doesn't.
    So our senses perceive objects, is that what our senses do? Because I don't think I'm perceiving objects, I think I am perceiving sights and sounds and touches, and I take those perceptions and make models in order to make sense of them. One of those models is the concept of an "object." But since "an object" is demonstrably just a model, I expect the concept to break down at some point. Which it does. It's true that our physics has only known the limitations of the concept of "an object" for about 100 years now, but sure enough, we do live in the time when we have discovered the limitation of that concept. But despite our privilege of living in that time, some of us can still simply discard that knowledge by saying "forget that realm." Others of us cannot arbitrarily remember or forget what they choose, we are stuck with the MDR that fits all the knowledge we have. And so we can see that an "object" is a model. It's a model of what is the source of other models. And yes, a model can be a source, because a "source" is also a model.
    I'm saying they are models, and models exist in our heads. But part of the model is the very concept of "existence," and our models say that what we mean by "cars and tigers" do what we mean by "exist." We find the models can save our lives, so we like the models, but that's all-- we test the models and find they do for us what we set out for them, and nothing more.
    In this discussion, I am trying to simplify the discussion, by restricting it to the macro world, which we detect without technical aids.
    Yes our senses perceive objects. You think you are just perceiving sights and sound and touches. So how do these originate if not from an object? In the real world, tigers and cars are dangerous.

    You negate the need for a source? So tigers and cars are figments of our imagination, according to you? We perceive sights and sounds and touches without any source behind them? Still do not get it.

  30. #13020
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    As a slight aside, I note that gzhpcu first engaged in this thread, on this very same issue, on Sept 13, 2014.

    Its coming up to five whole years, 13016 posts, and yet still no change in thinking ..

    It doesn't get much more 'different' in mindset, in that regard, than that!
    Yes, and why do you think that is so? Because I have yet to be convinced. Or we are completely misunderstanding each other.

Posting Permissions

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