Page 462 of 463 FirstFirst ... 362412452460461462463 LastLast
Results 13,831 to 13,860 of 13863

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #13831
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    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.
    I only refer to scientific relevance here. You can have any personal relevance you put your faith it, but if you cannot demonstrate it, then it is not of interest on a science forum.
    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.
    I don't know what you intend your word "belief" to mean, but what you just said is exactly what I mean by an "article of faith."

  2. #13832
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Yes you do .. because I just told you and you responded with that mistaken belief.
    I don't know that what you told me is true or that any belief is mistaken.

  3. #13833
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I only refer to scientific relevance here. You can have any personal relevance you put your faith it, but if you cannot demonstrate it, then it is not of interest on a science forum. I don't know what you intend your word "belief" to mean, but what you just said is exactly what I mean by an "article of faith."
    If I decide that something is a reason for taking some action then it is. It's not a belief. It's a decision. That's what makes it relevant. Anyone can claim that it's not a good reason or that it's meaningless but that's in their own mental models. But if you insist that minds must be demonstrated then any mention of them has no place in a science forum.

  4. #13834
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    A belief is not the same thing as a decision and a true belief isn't necessarily relevant.

  5. #13835
    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
    A belief is not the same thing as a decision and a true belief isn't necessarily relevant.
    A decision can be just emotional, a refection of probabilities or randomised by tossing a coin. True belief is a tautology, , I guess a shorthand for my predictions have always worked out in this regard. Every time a black cat crosses my path, I meet a new person, it’s an observation, a correlation, a confirmation bias, but it’s a stretch to call it a true belief. I know the sun will rise because I have a tested model.
    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

  6. #13836
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    If I decide that something is a reason for taking some action then it is. It's not a belief. It's a decision.
    So you take the decision to advise your neighbour just in case they are a MI neighbour knowing that if you didn't adviser them to go to the doctors they will die. If you firmly believe there is no MI neighbour and thus don't give the advice and your neighbour dies, do you take that as proof that there was after all a MI neighbour?

  7. #13837
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    If I decide that something is a reason for taking some action then it is. It's not a belief. It's a decision.
    But what part of your decision has anything to do with what may or may not be in some MIR? You say you do it because it might be in an MIR, but you do the same thing if it isn't, and you'll only ever know, based on evidence not belief, what works. So the "just in case" part means nothing, and is not actually part of your decisionmaking. You are kidding yourself that there is anything going on here other than, you do it because it works. We all do what works, even when we actually know that it's not in any MIR (like the "force of gravity").

    What is happening here is, you claim you don't believe in an MIR, but you interact with the objects around you "just in case" they are in some MIR. See if you can tell any difference in the behavior if you had instead recognized that you treat the objects as if they were in an MIR. See the subtle but important difference between "just in case" vs. "as if" thinking-- the first involves believing in an MIR, the second merely involves successfully manipulating models. The sole difference is in the articles of faith involved.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-Mar-18 at 02:05 PM.

  8. #13838
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Neither requires believing in an MIR. Doing something just in case something else is true doesn't require belief.

  9. #13839
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Evolution by natural selection appears to have designed my brain to care about the well-being of other members of my species, to some extent. While I don't know that advising my mental model of a neighbor to see a doctor will help anyone, my mental model of the situation is sufficiently suggestive to trigger a decision to perform that action. I'm not seeing where the notion that I believe in an MIR comes from.

  10. #13840
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Neither requires believing in an MIR. Doing something just in case something else is true doesn't require belief.
    What part of believing in the existence of that truth, isn't a belief ... (regardless of your tentative: 'just in case')?
    You are comparing a possibility with an MIR 'truth' (which is believed).

  11. #13841
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    While I don't know that advising my mental model of a neighbor to see a doctor will help anyone, my mental model of the situation is sufficiently suggestive to trigger a decision to perform that action.
    How do you distinguish a mental model in the first place? For pages now, all I've seen is your assertion that: 'that's all my mind has' (more or less).
    It makes no sense to conclude that without the benefit of some test which produces evidence. Where's your test .. and where's your evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    I'm not seeing where the notion that I believe in an MIR comes from.
    For starters, MIR is a nonsensical oxymoron, so being concerned about it tentatively and using it as a condition, must be as Ken G says, an act of faith on your part.

  12. #13842
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    What part of believing in the existence of that truth, isn't a belief ... (regardless of your tentative: 'just in case')?
    You are comparing a possibility with an MIR 'truth' (which is believed).
    I don't know that there's an MIR truth.

  13. #13843
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    How do you distinguish a mental model in the first place? For pages now, all I've seen is your assertion that: 'that's all my mind has' (more or less).
    It makes no sense to conclude that without the benefit of some test which produces evidence. Where's your test .. and where's your evidence?

    For starters, MIR is a nonsensical oxymoron, so being concerned about it tentatively and using it as a condition, must be as Ken G says, an act of faith on your part.
    By MIR I mean something for which I have no mental model. What's so difficult about that? If the MDR model can't handle it then it's time to dump it and move on. That's how science works.

  14. #13844
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I don't know that there's an MIR truth.
    Then your condition/reason lacks 'guramba' and therefore is completely useless .. Which therefore renders your entire argument completely useless, also.

  15. #13845
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    By MIR I mean something for which I have no mental model. What's so difficult about that? If the MDR model can't handle it then it's time to dump it and move on. That's how science works.
    Don't confuse your MDR with what is being discussed in the bulk of this thread! Science only works in the conversation we're having, because the notion of MDR has been carefully constructed so that science can be done with virtually 'airtight' consistency.

    Thus far, everyone responding to you, has indicated how inconsistent your MDR version is! I personally outright reject it, because science loses its consistency (and wouldn't work) if contemplated within the framework you are proposing.

  16. #13846
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    I think everyone else should give up and stop responding to my posts since they consider them to be off topic.

  17. #13847
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Neither requires believing in an MIR. Doing something just in case something else is true doesn't require belief.
    What requires belief is that "in case it's true in the MIR" is not a nonsensical statement. To someone with no faith, it is indeed a nonsensical combination of terms, unless MIR is regarded as a model itself (as in, you treat the models as if they existed in some MIR, a key difference because that's the statement that requires no faith). The only testably meaningful statement is that you do it "in case it works out for the best." See the difference there? That's what is objectively testable-- with no need for any purely subjective article of faith that it is meaningful to say, because it is indeed testable.

    Consider any scientific theory you like. Do physicists model electrical currents using streams of particles they call electrons (and look at all the mind-dependent models I just invoked there) "in case" electrons really exist in some MIR? Of course not, that would be a completely unscientific claim. They model currents that way because it works to do so, period. And so do you, quite frankly, you just tell yourself a different reason because you have that article of faith that this is why you do it. I'm not knocking articles of faith, but we can all see it clearly.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-Mar-19 at 05:36 PM.

  18. #13848
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    Physicists are interested in how well their model agrees with what they measure. That's not at all similar to my motive to perform an action in case something I can't measure is true. I am doing something in case it works out for the best for someone else which can't happen if my mental models are all that exist. If any reference to MIR is nonsense then any post in this thread that mentions it is nonsense. Why discuss something if it's meaningless?

    Maybe you're confusing scientifically meaningful, which means testable, with the meaning I just assign to something so I can refer to it.
    Last edited by Chuck; 2020-Mar-19 at 07:09 PM.

  19. #13849
    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
    Neither requires believing in an MIR. Doing something just in case something else is true doesn't require belief.
    Was it Dirac, caught wearing a copper bracelet for arthritis, “surely you don’t believe in that!”
    Replied, “ Apparently it works even if you don’t believe in it“ ?
    (From memory, it might not be Dirac or arthritis but still a good story)
    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. #13850
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,130
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Was it Dirac, caught wearing a copper bracelet for arthritis, “surely you don’t believe in that!”
    Replied, “ Apparently it works even if you don’t believe in it“ ?
    (From memory, it might not be Dirac or arthritis but still a good story)
    It was Niels Bohr, I find I have the time to check. I wonder if Dirac would agree? He was born in Bristol, possibly.
    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

  21. #13851
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Was it Dirac Niels Bohr, caught wearing a copper bracelet for arthritis, “surely you don’t believe in that!”
    Replied, “ Apparently it works even if you don’t believe in it“ ?
    (From memory, it might not be Dirac or arthritis but still a good story)
    Still, this doesn't imply that it works because there might be an MIR .. that would still be evidence of a belief in MIR.
    Ie (more generally): tentatively deferring actions because of some 'possibility', is evidence of faith or a 'belief in' something.
    Untested predictions might be held tentatively as motivation for doing testing, but they're still only predictions (and are still distinguishable as beliefs).

  22. #13852
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    If any reference to MIR is nonsense then any post in this thread that mentions it is nonsense. Why discuss something if it's meaningless?

    Maybe you're confusing scientifically meaningful, which means testable, with the meaning I just assign to something so I can refer to it.
    I don't think anyone replying to your posts is confusing anything.

  23. #13853
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    How would anyone know whether or not someone else is confused? The person doing the determination might also be confused.

  24. #13854
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    How would anyone know whether or not someone else is confused?
    Where the person making the prediction can demonstrate to others that, over many trials, they have exceeded the average of a random chance guess that the subject is confused.

  25. #13855
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,767
    The person making the prediction might be confused about what the others are saying.

  26. #13856
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Physicists are interested in how well their model agrees with what they measure. That's not at all similar to my motive to perform an action in case something I can't measure is true.
    So you don't select a flavor of ice cream because you have a mental model that predicts you will enjoy it? And when you do indeed enjoy the ice cream, you don't call it a success for your mental model? You really think that you decided on that flavor "in case" that flavor exists in some MIR? No, you are no different from the physicist, you are just denying it for some reason.

    I am doing something in case it works out for the best for someone else which can't happen if my mental models are all that exist.
    You have chosen to believe it won't work out best unless there is an MIR, but there's no evidence of that whatsoever. Remember, it is only you that says it is between MIR vs. "models are all that exist." No one else is using that simplistic model, that's merely the fallacy of the excluded middle, also called "black and white thinking" (a common state of the MIR believer). MDR never claims models are "all that exist", it says that existence is also a model. You have a model you call "other people", and a concept that other people exist-- it's part of your model. You attach importance and value to the model that says other people exist, as do I. It does not undercut the importance and signficance you attach to your models, to say that they are models, any more than you enjoy ice cream less when you recognize that you are modeling your experience of eating it when you decide what flavor you want.

    MDR thinking merely predicts and tests that all these models we use so successfully depend on our minds, and the outcomes we get and the way we judge them good or bad also depend on our minds. That's it. It also says that "existence" is another mind-dependent model. That in no way says "nothing but models exists", that's again wrong algebra of models, that's simply not the correct way to manipulate models so that they work for us. Your entire mode of thought starts and ends with the idea that there is either an MIR, or "only models and nothing else", and such is purely a matter of your own personal faith. I have not the faith that it is one or the other, I see your MIR picture as a mind dependent model of yours, because I have ample testable evidence that that's just what it is. But I do not think that my models, or my mind, is all that exists-- for that is simply not what my meaning of "existence" is. When a physicist says that "models we call electrons" exist, they are using one meaning of "exist"-- the meaning we apply to the existence of models (like MIR). When a physicist uses their model of an "electron" to say that "electrons exist" (and they do indeed say that), they are merely combining the models with a different meaning of existence, one that applies to the way models get used to give meaning to the "existence" model. That's the correct algebra of models, we say electrons exist because our models work so well, but we do not forget they are models. That's where MIR belief goes off the rails, when it denies it is elevating a model to an article of faith, when the evidence is so strong in favor of that conclusion.

    If any reference to MIR is nonsense then any post in this thread that mentions it is nonsense. Why discuss something if it's meaningless?
    To point out that it is meaningless, without articles of faith. And remember, I don't say it is meaningless in the domain of faith, I say (and show) that in the domain of scientific evidence, it is meaningless as anything but an idealized mind-dependent model. Yes, MIR is a mind-dependent model, it's very easy to show that-- unless a belief has been chosen that it is something other than that.
    Maybe you're confusing scientifically meaningful, which means testable, with the meaning I just assign to something so I can refer to it.
    How could I confuse that, when I have so many times in this thread made that exact point myself? That's the whole "article of faith" aspect-- if it not scientifically meaningful, then it is an article of faith, because we don't know any other kind of coherent meaning.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-Mar-20 at 01:03 AM.

  27. #13857
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,130
    A quote this week from Matthew Parris, a columnist here,
    “ We are far too ready to conclude that just because we have words in our language for something, there must be something for the words to describe.“
    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. #13858
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    And I would add to that, far too ready to conclude that if there is only a single word, then there is only a single thing-- rather than something a little different for everyone. For example, we tend to imagine in romance novels that every time someone says "I love you", this means the same thing, like there is a "thing" known as falling in love, rather than what is obviously the case-- a class of similar phenomena that are a little different for everyone, classified together for convenience.

  29. #13859
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,567
    What blows me away in general, is that profloater actually noticed the significance of that quote! Please, I'm not directing this as a negative at profloater .. (quite the contrary, in fact). Moreso, it amplifies the significance of my own everyday observations since making the attempt of wrapping my mind around MDR thinking.
    Gotta be careful not to start believing in that significance though ...

  30. #13860
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Yes, it's all about empowering ourselves to understand better the roles we play in our own reality. We face limitations that understanding mind-dependence cannot free us from, but I would say most of us also face imagined limitations that do not in fact exist in some "MIR". We imagine we are limited by a reality that is handed to us from the outside, thereby missing our opportunity to engage with that reality, and transform it simply by regarding it differently. The MIR is just another model, so it serves us to a point, but emprisons us if we overuse it.

Posting Permissions

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