Page 461 of 463 FirstFirst ... 361411451459460461462463 LastLast
Results 13,801 to 13,830 of 13863

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #13801
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    It doesn't tell you whether or not the referred to thing exists but it does tell you that I don't know whether or not it exists. That doesn't tell me anything about the referred to thing but it tells you something about me.
    It tells me that you'd require me to believe whatever you tell me in order to update my knowledge .. and I choose to not follow that faith-based (belief) process, because such 'knowledge' is not useful for making predictions of what might happen next. In other words, its useful to ignore it, I suppose, in which case the line of query was of no use in deciding on future actions, so it may as well have never happened.

  2. #13802
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    I never claimed that it mattered whether a MIR exists or not. I can't tell so it doesn't matter.

  3. #13803
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I never claimed that it mattered whether a MIR exists or not. I can't tell so it doesn't matter.
    Then we are in complete agreement on the matter. It also means you understand what I mean by an article of faith-- that which we can't tell. But what does matter is when people think not only that it exists, but also that they know its attributes, and use it as justification to export their beliefs onto others.

  4. #13804
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    I don't agree that I can't refer to something that's not a mental model, if it exists independently of my mental model of it. If I specify that I'm not referring to any mental model that I might have then any such mental model is disqualified as being what I'm referring to. But the reference is there. I can read it for myself.

  5. #13805
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The answer to that question is the best way to understand the core thesis of MDR thinking: when we talk about reality, we demonstrably mean something that depends on our minds, and to do the demonstration, all we have to do is observe the meaning.
    So when (robots and simulators) demonstrate something that depends entirely on (robots and simulators) minds (robots and simulators) don't actually do anything that is physically discernible because (robots and simulators) cannot conceive something that is entirely beyond them, where humans have senses that allow them to interact with what (robots and simulators) describe as 'reality' and humans call the real world.

  6. #13806
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    So when (robots and simulators) demonstrate something that depends entirely on (robots and simulators) minds (robots and simulators) don't actually do anything that is physically discernible because (robots and simulators) cannot conceive something that is entirely beyond them, where humans have senses that allow them to interact with what (robots and simulators) describe as 'reality' and humans call the real world.
    Robots and simulators aren't considered as having self aware, conscious minds, so they do not perceive. The people who observe them do though.

  7. #13807
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I don't agree that I can't refer to something that's not a mental model, if it exists independently of my mental model of it.
    The question is not about what exists in some unknown sense, that is a matter of personal faith. The question for us is simply what you mean when you say something. Do you mean to refer to something in an MIR, or do you mean to refer to a mental model you have in your head? It's a simple question, you cannot say "I mean one thing if MIR exists, and another if it doesn't." When you say "my neighbor", those are your words. So which do you mean by them? Simple question.

  8. #13808
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    So when (robots and simulators) demonstrate something that depends entirely on (robots and simulators) minds (robots and simulators) don't actually do anything that is physically discernible because (robots and simulators) cannot conceive something that is entirely beyond them, where humans have senses that allow them to interact with what (robots and simulators) describe as 'reality' and humans call the real world.
    I don't know what you mean by "depends entirely on minds". I've never used that phrase in this whole thread, so you will have to explain what you mean when you introduce it here. Personally, I can't see the point of that phrase, which is why I've never used it.

  9. #13809
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The question is not about what exists in some unknown sense, that is a matter of personal faith. The question for us is simply what you mean when you say something. Do you mean to refer to something in an MIR, or do you mean to refer to a mental model you have in your head? It's a simple question, you cannot say "I mean one thing if MIR exists, and another if it doesn't." When you say "my neighbor", those are your words. So which do you mean by them? Simple question.
    I mean my MIR neighbor. I just don't have faith that he exists. I don't have your faith that faith is required to refer to him.

  10. #13810
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I mean my MIR neighbor. I just don't have faith that he exists.
    Let's go back to the example of the force of gravity. Let's assume that at some point in your life, you were taught that there exists a "force of gravity," yes? Then try to remember using that concept, did you not use it similarly to concepts like "my neighbor"? And if someone asked you, say after doing a physics lab on gravity, what you refer to when you use the phrase "the force of gravity", would you not have said just what you are saying now? In other words, wouldn''t you have said that you don't have faith that the force of gravity exists, but you are still referring to an MIR force of gravity when you talk about it?
    I don't have your faith that faith is required to refer to him.
    I did not say that faith is required to refer to your neighbor, of course you can refer to your neighbor without faith that they exist. Indeed, I already mentioned that I still don't know if this mythical neighbor you talk about is someone you regard as existing, or just a hypothetical (and you still haven't found it necessary to even say which it is, that's how little it matters!). Nor is faith required to refer to a mental model. What we can easily explore evidence of, however, is that faith is required to believe that there is any difference in meaning between what we "refer to" as a mental model of some MIR, and what we refer to as an actual part of MIR. The evidence here is that what you mean by "MIR", or "my MIR neighbor", are both mental models that you have constructed. Others also construct mental models they associate with both those terms, models that are contextual, conditional, and subject to change as needed. When you say you "refer to" an MIR neighbor, you are merely combining those two mind-dependent models, what your mind means by neighbor, which is a little different from what anyone else would mean and will depend on context, with what your mind means by MIR, which is also rather different from any other mind and will also depend on context, it's not even a single thing. This is all the demonstrably normal way our minds manipulate and combine models that depend on our minds.

    It's like the force of gravity. The physicist who invokes a model of a "force of gravity" does not view that, within the model, as something mind dependent, because the mind dependence exhibited by that model is not included in that model. So they might well say, in describing their model, that the force of gravity is intended to be in some MIR. But if they take that meaning, we can easliy see that MIR is also being used as a model, and what is meant by that depends on the mind so using it. What makes this easy to see is that if that mind learns, as all phycisists have, that there is not a force of gravity in some actual MIR, it will not alter in any way the way they use the model they call the force of gravity. That is testable, and is tested successfully on a daily basis in physics classrooms all over the world. It would be silly for physicists to have said, prior to GR, that they use a model of the force of gravity "in case" it refers to an actual force of gravity in some MIR, or "in case" some MIR exists, because they will use it the same way after they learn it isn't in any MIR! Ergo, the faith in MIR is purely in the mind of the user, not in the usage itself. If you have not that faith, then fine, it only means you also see how irrelevant is that aspect of your intended meaning. I can't tell you what you mean when you use words, but I can invoke evidence to show what aspects of your intended meanings have no actual relevance to how you are using that word in your daily life, just as I can show what a physicist is getting out of the concept of a "force of gravity."
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-Mar-16 at 03:07 PM.

  11. #13811
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    When I learned about gravity I would have said I meant a mind independent force when referring to it. Now I mean my mental model of it. But when I say my neighbor needs a doctor I'm not referring to my mental model of him since my mental models don't need doctors. If my mental models are all there are then no one needs a doctor, so I'm wrong. Gravity doesn't need my advice. Since I can see the difference between gravity and my neighbor it doesn't require faith.

  12. #13812
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,492
    Does your mental model of your neighbour play out in your mind before, after or at the same time as your MI neighbour plays out (accepting that you don't know if your MI neighbour exists).

  13. #13813
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    I have no idea. I don't have access to anything that's mind independent.

  14. #13814
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,492
    If MIR is true then your mental model of your neighbour must lag your MI neighbour in time. If the MI neighbour needs to go to the doctor why would the mental model of your neighbour have anything to do with the question? You advise your MI neighbour to go to the doctor, sme finite time later you have a model of your neighbour deciding whether to go or not. Some time later your MI neighbour decides to go to the doctor, some finite time after that decision your mental model of your neighbour goes to the doctor.

    If your MI neighbour doesn't exist, you only have your mental model. If your mental model never needs a doctor then it never needs a doctor. If you give advice, it won't be advice to a MI neighbour, that doesn't exist. You have to give advice instead to your mental model and see what happens.

    If you insist that you are giving advice to your MI neighbour then go back to the start and follow the rules of a time lag between your mental model of your neighbour and your MI neighbour.
    Last edited by Len Moran; 2020-Mar-16 at 11:30 PM.

  15. #13815
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    I don't know that I'm giving advice to a MI neighbor. I'm giving the advice just in case there's a MI person there. Even if an MI neighbor does receive the advice, I won't know it since all I'll know about is the MD neighbor. But I don't need to know the outcome of giving the advice for it to be worth trying.

  16. #13816
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    When I learned about gravity I would have said I meant a mind independent force when referring to it.
    Certainly, the model does not include a mind in it, that's normal for physics models. When I say it is a demonstrably mind dependent model, I mean we can see how different minds interpret the model differently, and some are not even capable of applying it correctly. The mind dependence is in the using of and thinking about the model, it's not included in the model. Not yet anyway-- we have not figured out how to include the mind dependence of physics models into the models themselves, including the observer with the observed, for example.
    But when I say my neighbor needs a doctor I'm not referring to my mental model of him since my mental models don't need doctors.
    It does not follow that simply because you are not using an incorrect way of combining models, that somehow implies you are not referring to a mental model. This is easy to show, just take something you do regard as a mental model, perhaps a "right triangle." Then say something about a right triangle, like its angles add up to 180 degrees. When you say "the angles add up to 180 degrees in this right triangle", are you not referring to the right triangle you have in mind? But by your logic, you cannot be referring to a mental model, because mental models don't have sides or angles-- something in your mind cannot have a side or an angle, but it can have attributes we call sides and angles. Similarly, a mental model can also have an attribute of needing a doctor, and indeed, it is your mental model that says your neighbor needs a doctor.

    All I would have to do is ask you details about what you mean by your neighbor (do they need to live on your block, on your street, in your area of town, etc.), and that would demonstrate that what you mean by a "neighbor" is a mental model. Or, you could say you mean additional things other than just "my neighbor", you might mean things you did not say (like their age, their gender, etc.), but then we just do the same things with those other mental models. Everything that you mean when you say "my neighbor" can be explored by investigation, and it will demonstrate the models there. All you are doing here is taking all those facts, and attach to them a belief that you need to be "referring to" something in an MIR or else your models somehow work differently than if they are just models. But this is what you have not been able to show-- you have not been able to show that your "just in case it's part of the MIR" element has anything to do with the ways you actually use models like "your neighbor."
    If my mental models are all there are then no one needs a doctor, so I'm wrong.
    Saying "your mental models are all that is" is just another form of MIR. There is no part of MDR that says anything about what is, or what is all that is, it just says what we can see-- that we have mental models, and we use them successfully. Your faith that it adds anything to say you are right or wrong about some MIR has never been demonstrated as relevant-- indeed, it can be demonstrated that belief is doing nothing at all, because someone without that belief can use the same models in the same way (and in my case, does).
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-Mar-17 at 03:20 AM.

  17. #13817
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    My referring to an MIR person might not be relevant to you, but you have only your mental model of my mind so the relevance to me isn't available to you. Since I made up the relevance for myself it's not a just a belief, it's in my mind because I put it there.

  18. #13818
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I don't know that I'm giving advice to a MI neighbor. I'm giving the advice just in case there's a MI person there. Even if an MI neighbor does receive the advice, I won't know it since all I'll know about is the MD neighbor. But I don't need to know the outcome of giving the advice for it to be worth trying.
    Which surely is the same as saying that you might be giving advice to a MI neighbour or you might not be giving advice to a MI neighbour.

    In situations like this isn't it logical to follow each alternative through in consistent manner? But you don't do that, you start from a position of a prior mental model and from there decide if you are going to adopt realism or idealism (a MI neighbour as a source or no MI neighbour as a source). A prior mental model that never needs a doctor is incompatible with realism, realism most definitely holds that the MI source is prior to the mental model - realism defines a difference between the mental model and the MI source. I think you have to let go of your fixed starting position of a prior mental model and allow it to be properly dictated to by the path you decide upon. If you decide there is no MI neighbour, then the mental model does not refer to any source in terms of a distinction between the mental model and the MI source.

    You want to avoid following the consistent paths of realism or idealism by not committing yourself to either as if you can operate in a manner that acknowledges there are two paths to decide between (a MI neighbour that is prior to the mental model or no MI neighbour and hence an untouched mental model) but instead decides to follow an imaginary middle way that is nether.

    I can't as yet see that this imaginary middle path has any significance to anything, but I may be missing something.

  19. #13819
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    I'm following a path that might do some good if there is a MI and is harmless if there isn't. The philosophical discussion about it is just for entertainment.

  20. #13820
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    My referring to an MIR person might not be relevant to you, but you have only your mental model of my mind so the relevance to me isn't available to you. Since I made up the relevance for myself it's not a just a belief, it's in my mind because I put it there.
    To clarify, it's not relevant that either a MIR is there or not there, it's relevant that I don't know it's not there. If I knew it weren't then I wouldn't say that my neighbor needs a doctor. But I don't know.

  21. #13821
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    To clarify, it's not relevant that either a MIR is there or not there, it's relevant that I don't know it's not there. If I knew it weren't then I wouldn't say that my neighbor needs a doctor. But I don't know.
    To clarify, it only matters that your prediction that your neighbour is there pans out; most ordinary life actions take no account of scientific models because most predictions do work out.

    The difference is that this common experience is challenged when you consider modern physics, or consider the fundamentals of phenomena as a thought experiment. That’s when it’s important to know what you cannot know and what you mean by know.

    And to know you cannot test a belief when the belief is about those fundamentals. If you believe your neighbour is sick, that is a Bayesian prediction based on a wealth of observations, not a test of MDR or MIR for that matter.
    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. #13822
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    I'm not predicting anything about my neighbor. I specified that he needs a doctor only if he exists independently of my mind. I don't actually know that anyone needs a doctor. I'm saying so in case there's someone there who might be helped by it.

  23. #13823
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    .. And to know you cannot test a belief when the belief is about those fundamentals. If you believe your neighbour is sick, that is a Bayesian prediction based on a wealth of observations, not a test of MDR or MIR for that matter.
    Nah .. it doesn't matter how its dresssed up. A prediction can be either be testable or not .. and until a testable one is tested out, its still a belief.

  24. #13824
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I specified that he needs a doctor only if he exists independently of my mind.
    No .. he only needs a doctor when he decides he's sick. Its him who realises what 'sick' means regardless of your beliefs about that. Do you really think he doesn't know he's sick or not before you do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    I don't actually know that anyone needs a doctor. I'm saying so in case there's someone there who might be helped by it.
    .. and what you say doesn't really matter to the person who already decides they're sick.

  25. #13825
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    He might be persuaded that he needs a doctor by my opinion.

    But this is mostly about whether or not I can refer to something that's not a mental model of mine.

  26. #13826
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    He might be persuaded that he needs a doctor by my opinion.
    Not if he's me!

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    But this is mostly about whether or not I can refer to something that's not a mental model of mine.
    It doesn't matter to him what you refer to .. you have self-isolated because of your distorted outlook.

  27. #13827
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    It's not about what matters to him. Do you have anything to say about whether or not I can refer so something that's not a mental model?

  28. #13828
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    It's not about what matters to him.
    Yes it is .. because according to what you've said, the matter only came up because you said you cared about him and you hoped your opinions might help him .. they don't.

  29. #13829
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    I don't know that they don't.

  30. #13830
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I don't know that they don't.
    Yes you do .. because I just told you and you responded with that mistaken belief.

Posting Permissions

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