Page 445 of 447 FirstFirst ... 345395435443444445446447 LastLast
Results 13,321 to 13,350 of 13386

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #13321
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by plant View Post
    There is no love, courage, free-will, music, sound, color, roughness, wetness, sourness, sweetness in the universe without mind. You can't have a bird singing without someone to know what a bird is, without ears and an auditory cortex to convert those sound waves into electrical impulses, and a mind to interpret the electrical signals into 'birdsong'....
    If a tree falls in a 'jungle' and nobody is there to convert those sound waves into electrical impulses.. did it really make a 'sound'? Whatever things it did by falling, i don't think 'sound' is one of them.
    But- for all you know- you are the only mind in the universe and it all dies along with you.
    I am not talking about love, sound, etc. Attributes created from our senses. I am talking about stars, moon, tigers, birds. If a tree falls in a jungle, it is about the tree falling in the jungle, not about the sound it makes...
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2019-Sep-16 at 05:31 PM.

  2. #13322
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,679
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I am not talking about love, sound, etc. Attributes created from our senses. I am talking about stars, moon, tigers, birds. If a tree falls in a jungle, it is about the tree falling in the jungle, not about the sound it makes...
    Yet you refuse to discuss atoms?
    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. #13323
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Yet you refuse to discuss atoms?
    I personally am not aware of individual atoms. Only tigers, trees and stars.

  4. #13324
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,679
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I personally am not aware of individual atoms. Only tigers, trees and stars.
    Do you believe the tiger is made of atoms formed in exploding stars? Or tigers are tigers and stars are stars? And how do you tell?
    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

  5. #13325
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,756
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    I personally am not aware of individual atoms. Only tigers, trees and stars.
    And thus, science dies. See how MIR-style thinking is actually a bug, not a feature, for scientific progress? When we mistake for the MIR what is actually an MDR that simply does not rely on any technology, we have lost the impetus to use said technology to build a better MDR.

  6. #13326
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    How can a belief in the present, (or worse .. a truism?), of: 'things are going to change in the future', possibly serve as justification for ruling out other people's beliefs about the future as being 'foolishness'? Science certainly doesn't attempt resolutions of such matters, nor does it take notice of MIR beliefs (because of untestability)
    So why don't you prove that things aren't going to change in the future? How can you be so absolutely certain about that when even Ken G acknowledges future changes to the SMDR?

    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Were an AI to acquire sentience, such prejudices would have had to have been inherited from its human programmers and the same judgement of 'foolishness' (or 'not foolishness') remains .. Ie: it has nothing to do with with AI, or science .. (nor does conflating the past with the future).
    You are aware that sentience means feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought?

  7. #13327
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    There is always room for any belief, as long as one does not confuse it with what connects with objective evidence. We can believe that every imperfect circle reflects some aspect of a Platonic perfect circle, or we can just stick to what is in evidence-- we can gain understanding of, and power over, the objects we call circles by holding up next to them an ideal template that is the perfect circle. I never saw any need for the "Platonic form" to be anything beyond a conceptual template, a part of our MDR, but everyone is free to believe there is some perfect circle out there somewhere to compare to. That's just how I see the MIR concept.
    Obviously you are not suggesting that any circle you draw would be 'perfect' on all scales but would be within the 'specifications' of your mental model. If you mean that then you agree that the perfect form is unattainable and you are just mincing your words.

  8. #13328
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    And thus, science dies. See how MIR-style thinking is actually a bug, not a feature, for scientific progress? When we mistake for the MIR what is actually an MDR that simply does not rely on any technology, we have lost the impetus to use said technology to build a better MDR.
    LOL, lets remove those pesky humans from the scientific process eh, to stop science dying.

    Science dies, in the sense that the SMDR stops evolving and becomes 'perfect' when people stop thinking, the death of MIR is the death of human science not the opposite.

  9. #13329
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Do you believe the tiger is made of atoms formed in exploding stars? Or tigers are tigers and stars are stars? And how do you tell?
    Why should I believe anything like that? Changes nothing. I believe in tigers and stars, with no analysis.

  10. #13330
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    So why don't you prove that things aren't going to change in the future? How can you be so absolutely certain about that when even Ken G acknowledges future changes to the SMDR?
    What .. because I'm not taking the opposite position from you .. you now want to argue about that as well? You raised a prejudiced opinion and then dismissed others' as 'foolishness'. I'll be honest with you .. this whole sub-conversation isn't worthy of any more electrons ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG
    You are aware that sentience means feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought?
    I'm aware that sentience is a very fuzzy model, conceived by and recognised by human minds. I'm also aware that subjectivity and objectivity are artificial constructs. The definition of sentience is completely up for grabs and not worth arguing about.

  11. #13331
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,679
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Why should I believe anything like that? Changes nothing. I believe in tigers and stars, with no analysis.
    But in this thread about reality within a science forum we have thousands of posts that have been about analysis (which is a mind function) and beliefs, you are entitled to yours, but why argue as you have done, if you just want to avoid the thinking part?
    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

  12. #13332
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Simply because I have tried, but for me the “thinking” part has not really convinced me. I especially appreciate Ken G’s patience and correctness. Guess for the umpteenth time, I will abandon the field.

  13. #13333
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,679
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Obviously you are not suggesting that any circle you draw would be 'perfect' on all scales but would be within the 'specifications' of your mental model. If you mean that then you agree that the perfect form is unattainable and you are just mincing your words.
    That seems harsh; a mathematical circle is attainable in my head, or as a written definition, but it does not mean it is an archetype in the mind of god. Although I accept it could be, I cannot test that and I believe no mind can test that. So how would we know if it is attainable or not in a future SMDR? Our atomic model cannot include a perfect circle but maybe there will be a deeper model in the future.
    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. #13334
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,679
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Simply because I have tried, but for me the “thinking” part has not really convinced me. I especially appreciate Ken G’s patience and correctness. Guess for the umpteenth time, I will abandon the field.
    Can I suggest looking up 18th century David Hume, who thought this all out before we were born?
    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

  15. #13335
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,756
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Obviously you are not suggesting that any circle you draw would be 'perfect' on all scales but would be within the 'specifications' of your mental model. If you mean that then you agree that the perfect form is unattainable and you are just mincing your words.
    The actual problem is I cannot tell what you are trying to say.

  16. #13336
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,756
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Simply because I have tried, but for me the “thinking” part has not really convinced me.
    Remember that no one is trying to convince you to abandon your beliefs in an MIR, merely to establish they are beliefs and do not appear in the scientific process. Personally, I think it's fine that you choose to believe that the concept of MIR is both meaningful and true, and in fact I'm quite sure you are in the great majority there.

  17. #13337
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,315
    Just coming back to the sub-conversation about Occam's (and adding a little more).
    Ken said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G
    Einstein's version of Occam said it best-- a theory should be as simple as possible but no simpler. Perhaps the statement should be expounded to be flexible to different contexts, because what succeeds is context-dependent, and what counts as "simple" is mind dependent. Just apply that to the whole MDR, and this is what we get.
    So then I encounter this statement:
    The scientific plausibility of any prediction depends to a large degree on the robustness of the theory that predicts it and the additional assumptions it requires. The plausibility to any given individual will be additionally influenced by personal biases.
    So here we have context dependency in the form of something referred to as 'scientific plausibility' (whatever that is .. IMO) and mind dependency in the form of plausibility being an 'individual' matter and then additionally being 'influenced by personal biases'.

    So I then I'm forced into pondering just what about 'plausibility assessment' (of predictions) is ever 'scientific'?
    I mean, where is the evidence of the scientific process being used in the plausibility assessment of predictions?

    Does plausibility assessment have anything at all to do with science? (I think this was also profloater's original query arising from discomfort about Occam's Razor being considered 'scientific'?)

    Interpretations such as QM's MWI vs Copenhagen, might require a context of the quantum landscape leading to these distinct lines of interpretation but does that somehow (even potentially) elevate these beyond other untestable beliefs, in terms of furthering explanatory benefits in science?

  18. #13338
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    What .. because I'm not taking the opposite position from you .. you now want to argue about that as well? You raised a prejudiced opinion and then dismissed others' as 'foolishness'. I'll be honest with you .. this whole sub-conversation isn't worthy of any more electrons ...
    You imply absolutely, that we know everything now and won't learn anything we don't know now in the future, by rejecting my statement that our SMDR will expand in the future despite us not knowing what those differences will be (currently MIR). If you even agreed that an infinitesimal amount of knowledge about a future SMDR is not available to our current SMDR you would not be taking an absolute stance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    I'm aware that sentience is a very fuzzy model, conceived by and recognised by human minds. I'm also aware that subjectivity and objectivity are artificial constructs. The definition of sentience is completely up for grabs and not worth arguing about.
    Objectivity: the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings
    Subjectivity: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts
    Have a real think about your future responses Selfsim, and try to model how a human would reply.

    A human wouldn't consider my opinion prejudiced (unless they believed the current SMDR was perfect), nor would they talk about wasting electrons (breath and time maybe) or not recognise things that other human minds recognise (model of sentience).

  19. #13339
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    That seems harsh; a mathematical circle is attainable in my head, or as a written definition, but it does not mean it is an archetype in the mind of god. Although I accept it could be, I cannot test that and I believe no mind can test that. So how would we know if it is attainable or not in a future SMDR? Our atomic model cannot include a perfect circle but maybe there will be a deeper model in the future.
    I'm just using Plato's perfect form as an example of something that will never be reached physically, i.e. the application not the theory.

    Any future deeper model that did succeed would be based on 'new science' and would not currently be in the SMDR.

  20. #13340
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    [/I]So I then I'm forced into pondering just what about 'plausibility assessment' (of predictions) is ever 'scientific'?
    I mean, where is the evidence of the scientific process being used in the plausibility assessment of predictions?

    Does plausibility assessment have anything at all to do with science? (I think this was also profloater's original query arising from discomfort about Occam's Razor being considered 'scientific'?)
    Usually as a gatekeeper in the administration of research funding as decided by a board containing scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Interpretations such as QM's MWI vs Copenhagen, might require a context of the quantum landscape leading to these distinct lines of interpretation but does that somehow (even potentially) elevate these beyond other untestable beliefs, in terms of furthering explanatory benefits in science?
    It might become testable when the caveats about the different underlying mathematics of the energy theorems are reconciled.

  21. #13341
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    384
    Look all this has probably been said before I suppose..but still not sure how the term "Mind Dependent Realism" is not a paradox/ oxymoron. If 'reality' is mind-dependent, then it's not 'realism' in the sense that has been accepted both in common usage and in the field of 'philosophy of science' (i don't think).
    Why not re-label it "Mind Dependent Models" or "Mind Dependent Anti-realism" ?

    I can easily accept my mind is real as I have access to my own thoughts/feelings/consciousness. (yours are a different matter).
    But if MDR says my own mind is only a model... then my own mind is also not 'real'.
    My mind makes the models of the universe (scientific or otherwise), but my mind is a model in the universe.
    There is no 'real' mind, and there is no 'real' universe... they are infinite nested recursive of models of each.

    Is one to accept the philosophical idea of a tiger chasing it's tail? Just shrug and say "well that's the best we can get" or "Yup it seems like a paradox". Perhaps so. I thought reductio ad absurdum was supposed to result in the premise being rejected due to absurdity, not accepted. Or it it just that it seems like "woo" but isn't "woo".

    What i'd really like for christmas is if KenG and other proponents of MDR summarise their complete views in a post/essay/haiku .. so that we can assess them in their complete formulation.

    If this has already been done in the last 500 pages- could someone point me to the post number?


    "It's only a model....?" :-)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc

  22. #13342
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,679
    I think it helps to trace this idea back to Bacon, then Bishop Berkeley and David Hume (as I suggested to gzhpcu ) who in a sequence challenged as did Aquinas, the root of knowledge as those ideas developed toward experience as the root of knowledge rather than divine inspiration. They all wanted to explore the universe in what we call science today, all pre Freud, if we acknowledge that he introduced the idea of the unconscious. The modern scientific view of the mind is changing fast thanks to tools equivalent to the telescope and microscope, while at the same time physics is pondering ER=EPR which is kind of mind blowing. I do not see this as circular but an evolution of ideas. The word reality is the one that needs care but the thread is about reality. The word model came in to express the ideas in mind. So what we call reality is a model in mind or many models in mind or minds that exist in our bodies. A Haiku will take a litlle longer.
    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

  23. #13343
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by plant View Post
    ... What i'd really like for christmas is if KenG and other proponents of MDR summarise their complete views in a post/essay/haiku .. so that we can assess them in their complete formulation.

    If this has already been done in the last 500 pages- could someone point me to the post number?
    The MDR hypothesis is here.
    One of Ken's summaries is here.

  24. #13344
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    You imply absolutely, that we know everything now and won't learn anything we don't know now in the future, by rejecting my statement that our SMDR will expand in the future despite us not knowing what those differences will be (currently MIR).
    No .. I did none of that.

    Future outcomes of objective testing are unknown ... otherwise, there would be no point in testing at all. The purpose of such tests is to allow minds to update the scientific meaning of our knowledge of Objective Reality.

    I don't have to believe the 'our SMDR will expand in the future', (whatever that means), belief that you're pushing .. So I choose not to.
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    If you even agreed that an infinitesimal amount of knowledge about a future SMDR is not available to our current SMDR you would not be taking an absolute stance.
    As I said above, scientific meaning informs our knowledge of Objective Reality by following its process. Predictions made in advance of executing that process are, at best, mere opinions until they've been tested out. You're just filling in the blanks with your beliefs about what you think must be so. That's not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG
    Have a real think about your future responses Selfsim, and try to model how a human would reply.
    I am human .. I do think .. and I have replied.

  25. #13345
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364

  26. #13346
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Brilliant! Thanks!
    "It's only a model....?" :-)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc

  27. #13347
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    384
    I wonder if the MDR hypothesis sees the 'binding problem' as a 'feature, not a bug'... or as the MDR as the 'unbinding' of the sensations of naive realism.
    In other words- when i take a bite of a HEAVY ,RED, SWEET, CRUNCHY, APPLE (words in capitals are models)... these sensations are integrated into a single conscious model of "APPLE".
    Perhaps it is this evolved integration that leads us to believe in 'reality' as a shorthand/ rule-of-thumb naive realism.
    But doesn't the fact these seperate sensations 'co-localise' mean there is 'something' there i.e. a deeper reality.. even if it is not actually RED, SWEET or CRUNCHY.
    I'm not saying we can ever 'get there'....
    I'm going off to re-read the thread again from beginning. See yo uall back in another 2 years :-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multis...inding_problem

    The relationship between the binding problem and multisensory perception can be thought of as a question – the binding problem, and potential solution – multisensory perception. The binding problem stemmed from unanswered questions about how mammals (particularly higher primates) generate a unified, coherent perception of their surroundings from the cacophony of electromagnetic waves, chemical interactions, and pressure fluctuations that forms the physical basis of the world around us. It was investigated initially in the visual domain (colour, motion, depth, and form), then in the auditory domain, and recently in the multisensory areas. It can be said therefore, that the binding problem is central to multisensory perception.[4]

    However, considerations of how unified conscious representations are formed are not the full focus of multisensory Integration research. It is obviously important for the senses to interact in order to maximize how efficiently people interact with the environment. For perceptual experience and behavior to benefit from the simultaneous stimulation of multiple sensory modalities, integration of the information from these modalities is necessary. Some of the mechanisms mediating this phenomenon and its subsequent effects on cognitive and behavioural processes will be examined hereafter. Perception is often defined as one's conscious experience, and thereby combines inputs from all relevant senses and prior knowledge. Perception is also defined and studied in terms of feature extraction, which is several hundred milliseconds away from conscious experience. Notwithstanding the existence of Gestalt psychology schools that advocate a holistic approach to the operation of the brain,[5][6] the physiological processes underlying the formation of percepts and conscious experience have been vastly understudied. Nevertheless, burgeoning neuroscience research continues to enrich our understanding of the many details of the brain, including neural structures implicated in multisensory integration such as the superior colliculus (SC)[7] and various cortical structures such as the superior temporal gyrus (GT) and visual and auditory association areas. Although the structure and function of the SC are well known, the cortex and the relationship between its constituent parts are presently the subject of much investigation. Concurrently, the recent impetus on integration has enabled investigation into perceptual phenomena such as the ventriloquism effect,[8] rapid localization of stimuli and the McGurk effect;[9] culminating in a more thorough understanding of the human brain and its functions.
    "It's only a model....?" :-)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc

  28. #13348
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post

    [/I]So I then I'm forced into pondering just what about 'plausibility assessment' (of predictions) is ever 'scientific'?
    I mean, where is the evidence of the scientific process being used in the plausibility assessment of predictions?
    Probably the closest thing to "plausibility assessment" in the scientific process is the refereeing process. Ultimately the benefit of a theory must be judged in hindsight, after a successful prediction has occurred, but one does want to have some power over future outcomes. I don't think there is any tried and true way to put confidence in a prediction, and each scientific subdiscipline may do it a little differently. Perhaps a clear example is medicine, because there you want to use a theory that something helps cure some disease, so you look at past cases that seem similar and trust that this will well represent future outcomes. But every patient is different, so your assessment of the prognosis may depend on which cohort of patients you regard that person as belonging to. If you restrict the category they belong to too much, you won't have a statistically significant sample to judge your expectation, but if you don't restrict it enough, you may not be finding the best treatment tailored to that individual. Is there a science to choosing the right cohort? We'd have to ask doctors how they have navigated the problem.


    Interpretations such as QM's MWI vs Copenhagen, might require a context of the quantum landscape leading to these distinct lines of interpretation but does that somehow (even potentially) elevate these beyond other untestable beliefs, in terms of furthering explanatory benefits in science?
    Interpretations are a bit different from theories, because they have nothing to do with predictions, they are more like personal philosophy. I'd say that's where "personal bias" plays more or a role than in deciding a successful theory. Certainly one's personal goals for using a theory affects what theory is chosen to use, but that isn't quite the same as "bias."

  29. #13349
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    384
    The scientific method is itself not 'scientific' as it cannot be falsified in the Popperian sense.
    Which hypotheses are tested, which are not.. this is not the purview of 'Science'.
    Which hypotheses are 'good ones' and which are 'bad' ones (before you test them) is not the purview of science.
    'Beautiful equations', Occamian 'Simplicity' - also not scientific. Why should the universe be beautiful or simple?
    "It's only a model....?" :-)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc

  30. #13350
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by plant View Post
    What i'd really like for christmas is if KenG and other proponents of MDR summarise their complete views in a post/essay/haiku .. so that we can assess them in their complete formulation.
    The MIR one is:-

    Time goes on both ways forever,
    despite all mortal human endeavour,
    infinity will be reached, never ever.

    Which is just the difference between proper power functions and improper power functions, between local laws vs 'universal' laws, between a flat surface vs a curved surface which is also the difference between our calculated universal matter and our observed universal matter ().

Posting Permissions

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