Causal exclusion problem

[Ana the Ist]

More like what I've said is nothing about 'science studying things external to the mind' (ie: indepedently from the mind) because that notion never appears in scientific models.

The notion never appears in scientific models? Of course it does. Most biologist don't think trees exist only in their minds....and can plant a sapling....and return to find the sapling a.mature tree decades later.

It would be astoundingly dumb to imagine that their mind played any part in that tree's existence.

I'm not the one asserting 'things existing external',

Which is pretty baffling.

(where I take 'external' there, as meaning independent from our minds) from our sensory/perceptional mind models

This is inherently self contradictory because without the assumption that you are indeed sensing something....anything....independent of your mind, then what exactly are you sensing? A hallucination?

All science all the time operates under the assumption that objective reality exists. Any attempt to do science without that assumption is not science in any meaningful way.

without using a human mind.

Are you asking me to do something without using my mind?

I'm breathing, requires no thinking at all, and yet....I must be breathing something that exists independent of my mind.

Your MDR is hot garbage. You're onto nothing here.

Otherwise its all just one big belief, (where the meaning of 'belief' there, I gave before).

It is all one big belief.

 

[J_B_]

Ok fair enough .. (as long as we recognize that 'external' is already a mind-dependent construct). I'd agree that external has a different meaning from independent there. A mind can conceive of something 'external' to the mind, but that doesn't make it mind independent, since the mind is the source of the me/not me dichotomy. There's plenty of evidence that this dichotomy is at least partially, if not totally, artificial, yet it is a very useful construct all the same. So I would go so far as to say most people include in their model/picture of reality, the idea that there is an 'internal' reality and an 'external' reality, (myself included), even though the laws of physics make no such explicit distinction, since in a 'real' sense, all electrons, for example, are indistinguishable and do not have separate identities such that one can be said to be 'inside' you and another 'outside' you. All the same, we conceive of them that way .. so which is the 'real' electron there?
...

Fair enough .. its of no significance and to further clarify: I wasn't referring to yourself.

This is a game of infinite turtles because electrons can't speak for themselves in a self-aware manner, and so we must interpret how they 'speak' via the way we perceive them. As such, if we fundamentally disagree about the nature of what is external to us (or what counts as internal vs. external), there is no end to the pointless arguing that goes nowhere.

 

[J_B_]

That's a fair point....but it doesn't describe everything.

If you'd like me to describe something in particular as a means to an end in the mind/body conversation, let me know.

 

[SelfSim]

This is a game of infinite turtles because electrons can't speak for themselves in a self-aware manner, and so we must interpret how they 'speak' via the way we perceive them. As such, if we fundamentally disagree about the nature of what is external to us (or what counts as internal vs. external), there is no end to the pointless arguing that goes nowhere.

And so someone could very well say: 'one can sit and contemplate the existence of MIR, or god, or turtles, or whatever, all the way down forever and it's not really going to get anyone any place different from where they started ... unless it inspires one to observe and record phenomena and place it in context with earlier observations and relationships whilst recognising those as being models' .. to which I'd say: 'spoken like a true scientist!'

All I would add is; this is true if we regard 'getting someplace' as getting somewhere scientifically, ie: being able to find objective evidence that can pass reproducible tests. Since that is the focus of this forum, it also means getting anywhere that we can discuss here. We should always note, however, that individuals are free to regard themselves as 'getting somewhere' in non-scientific ways if they so choose .. that's what we mean by beliefs. So nobody would be rejecting anyone's 'right to believe', I'd expect all that would be asked, is that they notice when they are invoking that right, versus when they are thinking scientifically.

 

[SelfSim]

Another way to perhaps frame the connection between scientific thinking, and common realism, is to say that in common realism, we say that 'what is real' serves as a kind of 'source' for the data our minds interpret. Then the scientist comes along and notices that the data must pass a mind-dependent filter before we could ever say 'what is real'. But MDR thinking takes this even a step farther than that, because it asks, when a scientist says we cannot tell if there is a 'source' that then passes a filter, or if there is just the filter that then tells us what we meant by a source in the first place, and that the filter is all we ever need or ever test in science, then is it not the next natural step for the scientist to simply ignore or remove from the model everything that is untested and unnecessary? We don't remove the concept of a source, as we use that all the time .. we remove the extraneous idea that our concept of a source was a kind of virgin birth!

For example, a similar thing happened to the "aether" when Einstein came up with relativity. In relativity, there is no need for an aether, it never appears anywhere in the theory. Yet the theory also does not say there isn't an aether, and that there isn't an absolute universal reference frame, it only says that such an aether, and such a frame, never appears in any experimental outcomes or any theoretical equations needed to predict those outcomes. That's exactly like the pre-filtered mind-independent 'source' of the data. If science doesn't use it, and doesn't test it, then it doesn't have it either. This seems to be the bitter pill for the mind indepedent reality believers .. they cannot accept that what they are doing is choosing a belief. It's a valid personal belief, but it's not science, because science never needs it or uses it, and that's the part that is demonstrably testable.

 

[J_B_]

All I would add is; this is true if we regard 'getting someplace' as getting somewhere scientifically, ie: being able to find objective evidence that can pass reproducible tests. Since that is the focus of this forum, it also means getting anywhere that we can discuss here. We should always note, however, that individuals are free to regard themselves as 'getting somewhere' in non-scientific ways if they so choose .. that's what we mean by beliefs. So nobody would be rejecting anyone's 'right to believe', I'd expect all that would be asked, is that they notice when they are invoking that right, versus when they are thinking scientifically.

I'm not challenging the notion that the scientific method is different than other methods of knowing. I just don't see how this MDR idea does anything to better clarify the differences. The idea feels inconsistent to me.

 

[SelfSim]

Just for elaboration purposes:

The MDR (or Mind Dependent Reality) hypothesis, is really two rather separate things, neither of which is conventional philosophy because they are both intended to be tested scientifically, which can be judged separately on their own evidential merits.

The first is a repudiation of the common idea that the Mind Independent Reality, belief, (or MIR, 'physical' or 'external' reality, etc), is part of science, a requirement of science, or some kind of explanation of why science works.
This 'common idea' has at least 3 distinct ideas. (At least 3, because the statement that MIR belief is "part of science" could be taken in more than one sense). These are:

1) MIR belief is part of science:
Nope. Just look up the scientific method anywhere you like .. no mention of MIR (or 'physical' reality, etc). That was easy.

2) MIR belief is a requirement of science
Nope. Same answer actually, if it is not part of science at all, it is most certainly not a requirement of science.

3) MIR belief explains why science works.
Nope. Scientific explanations must have the following two key properties, or they aren't. MIR belief offers neither of them:

i) the outcome that is claimed to be explained by MIR belief must not be equally consistent with the MDR picture. However, this is not the case .. MDR thinking works just as well as MIR thinking for saying why science works, and probably quite a bit better. MDR thinking about why science works is analogous to evolutionary biology thinking about why your eye works, whereas MIR thinking about why science works is analogous to using intelligent design to explain why your eye works ... the former conjures a somewhat random journey involving trial and error, the latter conjures a kind of underlying purpose or plan to the whole affair.

ii) the outcome that is claimed to be explained must be a necessary consequence of MIR belief, it must not be possible for us to use MIR belief to 'explain' both this outcome, and a totally opposite one, or it is no kind of 'explanation'. Yet MIR belief has exactly that property ... if science works, and one believes in MIR, one says 'see, science works because it is exploring/discovering the MIR'. If science does not work, and one believes in MIR, one says: 'see, science does not work because our puny minds are not capable of accessing the profundities of MIR'.

So no, there is no explanation of why science works that one will find in MIR, and a caveman who believes in MIR would never have any way of predicting whether or not science would be able to figure out nature. Similarly, a caveman who does not believe that the phrase MIR has any coherent meaning, could still just as easily suspect that a long process of trial and error could produce highly successful predictive models about nature.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not challenging the notion that the scientific method is different than other methods of knowing. I just don't see how this MDR idea does anything to better clarify the differences. The idea feels inconsistent to me.

Do you see any distinctions of inconsistencies arising in the comparison between MDR and MIR thinking in post #427 above?

 

[J_B_]

Do you see any distinctions of inconsistencies arising in the comparison between MDR and MIR thinking in post #427 above?

First, I feel it necessary to note that I've never claimed MIR. Not that you've accused me of it, but I want that to be clear. Neither do I feel it necessary to stipulate something to take MIR's place. I'm not looking for something akin to MDR. I think science is just fine without both.

... MDR thinking works just as well as MIR thinking for saying why science works, and probably quite a bit better ...

Then there's this. If science is OK without MIR (which you seem to support), and they both produce the same result, it would seem to follow that science is OK without MDR. So why do you advocate for it. The best thing you can say in its favor (as an afterthought) is that it's probably better. Probably? Which is it? MIR and MDR produce the same scientific result, or they don't?

 

[SelfSim]

First, I feel it necessary to note that I've never claimed MIR. Not that you've accused me of it, but I want that to be clear. Neither do I feel it necessary to stipulate something to take MIR's place. I'm not looking for something akin to MDR. I think science is just fine without both.

All fine by me .. I'm not interested in pushing the notion onto anyone.
The thing is, the MDR hypothesis is a regular scientific hypothesis .. aka: its science.
It happens to address the central issue raised in the OP but it uses the scientific method/approach rather than philsophical logic (or analytics) to outst a commonly held metaphysical notion.
Its an interesting hypothesis.
The time I spend explaining its nuances (etc), are only motivated as an aid to help others understand how such a seemingly wild conclusion actually does have good scientific merit and does make sound sense.

Then there's this. If science is OK without MIR (which you seem to support), and they both produce the same result, it would seem to follow that science is OK without MDR. So why do you advocate for it. The best thing you can say in its favor (as an afterthought) is that it's probably better. Probably? Which is it? MIR and MDR produce the same scientific result, or they don't?

Depends on the nature of the 'arguments' (and the 'arguer') raised around this place. Certain arguments are directly addressable 'targets' of the MDR hypothesis. Where someone is solely relying on the MIR belief in order to make their point, the MDR way of thinking and scientific method/approach exposes the fallacy .. it produces demonstrable evidence and lots of examples for all to see, (but one has to actually look to see them) .. and admittedely, it looks a bit like a hijack attempt and so its usually attacked on that intellectually lazy basis .. but it most certainly isn't irrelevant to their arguments .. more like: it takes their bull by its horns.

The funny thing is, other posters, who I consider as being professionally practicing scientists, (for whom I have a great deal of respect), never trigger these rather lengthy and intense MDR discussions with me. What that tells me is that their MIR beliefs, (if they do show up in those conversations), are just simply informal aside-from-the-point anecdotes, coming from their sharing their personal beliefs. They quickly revert back to the 'guts' and details of the real science .. I enjoy those type of threads more than these ones, (I can assure you of that).

 

[J_B_]

All fine by me .. I'm not interested in pushing the notion onto anyone.
The thing is, the MDR hypothesis is a regular scientific hypothesis .. aka: its science.
It happens to address the central issue raised in the OP but it uses the scientific method/approach rather than philsophical logic (or analytics) to outst a commonly held metaphysical notion.
Its an interesting hypothesis.
The time I spend explaining its nuances (etc), are only motivated as an aid to help others understand how such a seemingly wild conclusion actually does have good scientific merit and does make sound sense.

Depends on the nature of the 'arguments' (and the 'arguer') raised around this place. Certain arguments are directly addressable 'targets' of the MDR hypothesis. Where someone is solely relying on the MIR belief in order to make their point, the MDR way of thinking and scientific method/approach exposes the fallacy .. it produces demonstrable evidence and lots of examples for all to see, (but one has to actually look to see them) .. and admittedely, it looks a bit like a hijack attempt and so its usually attacked on that intellectually lazy basis .. but it most certainly isn't irrelevant to their arguments .. more like: it takes their bull by its horns.

The funny thing is, other posters, who I consider as being professionally practicing scientists, (for whom I have a great deal of respect), never trigger these rather lengthy and intense MDR discussions with me. What that tells me is that their MIR beliefs, (if they do show up in those conversations), are just simply informal aside-from-the-point anecdotes, coming from their sharing their personal beliefs. They quickly revert back to the 'guts' and details of the real science .. I enjoy those type of threads more than these ones, (I can assure you of that).

OK. Then as far as I'm concerned, we can drop it and move on to other things.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just for elaboration purposes:

The MDR (or Mind Dependent Reality) hypothesis, is really two rather separate things, neither of which is conventional philosophy because they are both intended to be tested scientifically, which can be judged separately on their own evidential merits.

The first is a repudiation of the common idea that the Mind Independent Reality, belief, (or MIR, 'physical' or 'external' reality, etc), is part of science, a requirement of science, or some kind of explanation of why science works.
This 'common idea' has at least 3 distinct ideas. (At least 3, because the statement that MIR belief is "part of science" could be taken in more than one sense). These are:

1) MIR belief is part of science:
Nope. Just look up the scientific method anywhere you like .. no mention of MIR (or 'physical' reality, etc). That was easy.

2) MIR belief is a requirement of science
Nope. Same answer actually, if it is not part of science at all, it is most certainly not a requirement of science.

3) MIR belief explains why science works.
Nope. Scientific explanations must have the following two key properties, or they aren't. MIR belief offers neither of them:

i) the outcome that is claimed to be explained by MIR belief must not be equally consistent with the MDR picture. However, this is not the case .. MDR thinking works just as well as MIR thinking for saying why science works, and probably quite a bit better. MDR thinking about why science works is analogous to evolutionary biology thinking about why your eye works, whereas MIR thinking about why science works is analogous to using intelligent design to explain why your eye works ... the former conjures a somewhat random journey involving trial and error, the latter conjures a kind of underlying purpose or plan to the whole affair.

ii) the outcome that is claimed to be explained must be a necessary consequence of MIR belief, it must not be possible for us to use MIR belief to 'explain' both this outcome, and a totally opposite one, or it is no kind of 'explanation'. Yet MIR belief has exactly that property ... if science works, and one believes in MIR, one says 'see, science works because it is exploring/discovering the MIR'. If science does not work, and one believes in MIR, one says: 'see, science does not work because our puny minds are not capable of accessing the profundities of MIR'.

So no, there is no explanation of why science works that one will find in MIR, and a caveman who believes in MIR would never have any way of predicting whether or not science would be able to figure out nature. Similarly, a caveman who does not believe that the phrase MIR has any coherent meaning, could still just as easily suspect that a long process of trial and error could produce highly successful predictive models about nature.

You didn't specify the second, but perhaps it doesn't matter since science (with exception of the sciences that study mind/brain/whatnot) doesn't care about "mind".

 

[SelfSim]

You didn't specify the second, but perhaps it doesn't matter since science (with exception of the sciences that study mind/brain/whatnot) doesn't care about "mind".

Ok .. (a person has only so much time and finger power to expend when there are other everyday real life things to attend to, eh?)

So here goes (part 2):

2) A scientifically testable hypothesis in the Popperian sense that does indeed make 'risky predictions' that test out well:

This conclusion is less clearly established, but I think the evidence for it is still pretty good. The predictions made by the claim that 'the reality concept in science means the mind-dependent sense we make of our perceptions, and neither refers to, nor is intended to refer to, anything mind independent' are indeed 'risky', in the sense that if the realist stance was a good scientific model, then we should not expect the mental choices made by the physicist to appear in the way physics theories describe reality. Consider, for example, this realist claim by the realist philosopher Moore: " 'blue' is as much an object, and as little a mere content, of my experience, when I experience it, as the most exalted and independent real thing of which I am ever aware".

The MDR hypothesis makes the prediction that this version of what 'blue' means cannot hold true, but instead experiments should be possible that clearly distinguish 'the experience of blue' from 'independent real things'. This is because the MDR hypothesis claims that 'the experience of blue' is mind dependent, and should be able to be demonstrated as something different for different minds.

This prediction tests out well, because we can easily distinguish the 'experience of blue' from 'the experience of reading a spectral analyzer that peaks in the blue part of the spectrum'. Both of those are mind-dependent capabilities of humans, but what matters for this argument is they are clearly different, putting the lie to Moore's realist claim. Experiments, such as on that infamous 'internet dress' from a few years ago, that to some people looked blue, and to others a completely different color, do indeed clearly show the difference between the experience of seeing blue, and the experience of reading a spectral analyzer that does not give the result: 'blue'.

In any event, my evidence for conclusion (2) is all the physics theories that cannot be properly understood until the role of the choices of the mind of the physicist is actually included in the physics (I do see some attempts). The notion of: 'they aren't', I'm pretty sure, would nonetheless be of benefit to those who do study 'mind/brain/whatnot', so what are we gonna do? Just pretend those folk aren't doing science, too?

Oh, and my evidence for the conclusion to part (1), is that the burden of proof to establish that realism plays any role in scientific thinking has clearly never been met thus far in this already entirely long thread .. (the possibility remains, the door is still open, and I eagerly await seeing it).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, and my evidence for the conclusion to part (1), is that the burden of proof to establish that realism plays any role in scientific thinking has clearly never been met thus far in this already entirely long thread .. (the possibility remains, the door is still open, and I eagerly await seeing it).

1. That's not evidence, it's a claim.

2. It's logically falsifiable. Name 1 scientific experiment (according to the modern scientific method) that doesn't assume the existence of MIR. You can't.

 

[SelfSim]

1. That's not evidence, it's a claim.

2. It's logically falsifiable. Name 1 scientific experiment (according to the modern scientific method) that doesn't assume the existence of MIR. You can't.

.. (and you're still in the wrong forum) ..

 

[Ana the Ist]

.. (and you're still in the wrong forum) ..

Lemme check really quick...

Nope. I'm still correct.

 

[SelfSim]

Lemme check really quick...

Nope. I'm still correct.

I suspect this thread might be about to go quantum physical(?)

If so, your concerns may or may not be conceded to, but in that event, it will only be for reasons other than those coming from your domain of focus.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I suspect this thread might be about to go quantum physical(?)

I suspect not.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you'd like me to describe something in particular as a means to an end in the mind/body conversation, let me know.

I'm fine with what you said...simply pointing out that logic/math has linguistic limitations as well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok .. (a person has only so much time and finger power to expend when there are other everyday real life things to attend to, eh?)

OK. I appreciate your response. You may not appreciate mine.

So here goes (part 2):

2) A scientifically testable hypothesis in the Popperian sense that does indeed make 'risky predictions' that test out well:

I like these, generally.

This conclusion is less clearly established, but I think the evidence for it is still pretty good. The predictions made by the claim that 'the reality concept in science means the mind-dependent sense we make of our perceptions, and neither refers to, nor is intended to refer to, anything mind independent' are indeed 'risky', in the sense that if the realist stance was a good scientific model, then we should not expect the mental choices made by the physicist to appear in the way physics theories describe reality. Consider, for example, this realist claim by the realist philosopher Moore: " 'blue' is as much an object, and as little a mere content, of my experience, when I experience it, as the most exalted and independent real thing of which I am ever aware".

The MDR hypothesis makes the prediction that this version of what 'blue' means cannot hold true, but instead experiments should be possible that clearly distinguish 'the experience of blue' from 'independent real things'. This is because the MDR hypothesis claims that 'the experience of blue' is mind dependent, and should be able to be demonstrated as something different for different minds.

This prediction tests out well, because we can easily distinguish the 'experience of blue' from 'the experience of reading a spectral analyzer that peaks in the blue part of the spectrum'. Both of those are mind-dependent capabilities of humans, but what matters for this argument is they are clearly different, putting the lie to Moore's realist claim. Experiments, such as on that infamous 'internet dress' from a few years ago, that to some people looked blue, and to others a completely different color, do indeed clearly show the difference between the experience of seeing blue, and the experience of reading a spectral analyzer that does not give the result: 'blue'.

The perception of "blue" is a question of psychology and neurobiology, the measurement of blue light with a spectrograph is only arbitrary in that we arbitrarily set the length scale. (The SI units are based originally on the size of the Earth.) The ratios of the Balmer series lines of hydrogen are not arbitrary, but an objective property of hydrogen Universally.)

In any event, my evidence for conclusion (2) is all the physics theories that cannot be properly understood until the role of the choices of the mind of the physicist is actually included in the physics (I do see some attempts).

This leaves only two possiblitites: 1. We understand nothing in physics or 2. the mind of the physicist s irrelevant. I'm going for the latter.

The notion of: 'they aren't', I'm pretty sure, would nonetheless be of benefit to those who do study 'mind/brain/whatnot', so what are we gonna do? Just pretend those folk aren't doing science, too?

I said nothing of the sort. Minds are thing to be studied by science, for the rest of us the are not of import to the results.

Oh, and my evidence for the conclusion to part (1), is that the burden of proof to establish that realism plays any role in scientific thinking has clearly never been met thus far in this already entirely long thread .. (the possibility remains, the door is still open, and I eagerly await seeing it).

I don't know from realism or not, MIR or MDR, or whatever, but after the consideration I don't see any practical impact to most of science from this question. Cheers.