Causal exclusion problem

[SelfSim]

.. it's analytic philosophy about semantics and how the words we use relate to how we understand reality.

I concur with the notion of examining closely, how word meanings directly impact our collective understanding of 'what reality is'.

You may find the link I posted in my previous response to @Ana the Ist of some interest(?):
Ie: Model Dependent Realism and Mind (model) Dependent Reality (MDR) Hypothesis.

PS: Namely because, .. well hey .., this is a physical sciences forum where evidence/references count .. and not a philosophy forum, no(?)

 

[Fervent]

I concur with the notion of examining closely, how word meanings directly impact our collective understanding of 'what reality is'.

You may find the link I posted in my previous response to @Ana the Ist of some interest(?):
Ie: Model Dependent Realism.

Is it supposed to be a model, or is it trying to say what is real in some meaningful way? All that seems to be saying is defining what is true in terms of utility. But a maps resemblance to reality doesn't increase its utility, in fact many times maps are more useful by making them resemble reality less and instead expanding symbolic fictions.

Models are nothing more than useful fictions, and creating a mechanical model of the universe has proven useful. But most people don't think of science as creating a fictitious model of reality and instead believe that there is an inherent relationship between its utility and objectiive truth. The usefulness of science as a successful model is fully explainable because of how it attains most of its definitions and the self-correcting nature that goes into theory building. But there's no reason to believe that the theoretical models science works with truly bear resemblance to the underlying reality. Increasing fictions in cartography can increase the utility of a map so the relationship between truth and utility isn't a straightforward inference.

 

[SelfSim]

Is it supposed to be a model, or is it trying to say what is real in some meaningful way? All that seems to be saying is defining what is true in terms of utility. But a maps resemblance to reality doesn't increase its utility, in fact many times maps are more useful by making them resemble reality less and instead expanding symbolic fictions.

(Here's a more explicit link to the MDR Hypothesis)

Science's purpose is utility and this is a science forum, (although I recognise that you appear to be more interested in pursuing some kind of so-called 'truth', which is disinteresting, from the scientific viewpoint).

Both 'a map' and 'reality' are models because the hypothesis is investigating the possibility that that's what the human brain does once it perceives, then describes .. ie: it forms models. Everything, once described, using language, becomes a model, (of type either: testable, or untestable).

Models are nothing more than useful fictions, and creating a mechanical model of the universe has proven useful. But most people don't think of science as creating a fictitious model of reality and instead believe that there is an inherent relationship between its utility and objectiive truth.

'Objective truth' in science, is never better than its last best tested theory (ie: a model). That may be unsatisfying for some folk .. but hey, this is a science forum .. not a philosophy forum.

The usefulness of science as a successful model is fully explainable because of how it attains most of its definitions and the self-correcting nature that goes into theory building. But there's no reason to believe that the theoretical models science works with truly bear resemblance to the underlying reality. Increasing fictions in cartography can increase the utility of a map so the relationship between truth and utility isn't a straightforward inference.

Your 'underlying reality' there, (where we are talking about objective reality), is unreachable by human minds .. so there is no basis upon which we can do objective comparisons, in order to determine science's 'accuracy',' resemblance to', etc, (or otherwise).

Fiction is the domain of 'belief', where the operational definition of belief, I gave in a previous post:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Objective tests followed by the application of logic rules is a necessary condition).'

 

[Hans Blaster]

I make no argument at all, my faith is built on a hope and a prayer.

If you've made no arguments, then what is this thread about? Is it just the meaningless nothing that I always suspected it was? The whole thing is about some "problem" that is solved by you making a substitution of one concept with a (nearly?) identical concept. A difference you refused to explain.

Your faith is not relevant to anything here.

I have no interest to dissuade you of your firm commitment to a self-sabotaging epistemology, I lose nothing if you remain steadfast in your rebellion.

Rebellion against what? I just don't buy your metaphysical claims. Nor am I convinced by your self-assured statements.

The circularity of arguments is only a problem if I pretend my claims are based solely in reason alone, cause my confession is that reason is a leaky bucket.

whatever floats your boat, but your rudder is stuck to one side.

My hands are empty, I make no promises of knowledge I simply am pointing out that the cloth the emperors robes are made out of have no substance.

How did the Bard put it: "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." If that's the kind of argument you with to make, you should expect no serious replies.

I preach, I do not argue. What you do with it is between you and God.

You're in the wrong section for preaching, pal. Nor am I interested in it.

 

[Fervent]

(Here's a more explicit link to the MDR Hypothesis)

Science's purpose is utility and this is a science forum, (although I recognise that you appear to be more interested in pursuing some kind of so-called 'truth', which is disinteresting, from the scientific viewpoint).

Both 'a map' and 'reality' are models because the hypothesis is investigating the possibility that that's what the human brain does once it perceives, then describes .. ie: it forms models. Everything, once described, using language, becomes a model, (of type either: testable, or untestable).

That's just a whole bunch of useless words. What science is and isn't is itself a model, and where to draw the lines isn't universally agreed upon. The only clear requirement is that there is an empirical component.

'Objective truth' in science, is never better than its last best tested theory (ie: a model). That may be unsatisfying for some folk .. but hey, this is a science forum .. not a philosophy forum.

Who defines what is and isn't science? Where do we mark the borders between empirical philosophy and scientific modeling?

Your 'underlying reality' there, (where we are talking about objective reality), is unreachable by human minds .. so there is no basis upon which we can do objective comparisons, in order to determine science's 'accuracy',' resemblance to', etc, (or otherwise).

Yes, but so many fail to understand this basic fact. Science provides us with useful fictions with no ability to comment on its own reliability as a form of acquiring knowledge.

Fiction is the domain of 'belief', where the operational definition of belief, I gave in a previous post:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Objective tests followed by the application of logic rules is a necessary condition).'

Models are fictions, as are maps. There are no objective tests, as your own arguments point out. There are only hypothetical models and beliefs, truth is inaccessible if we are all just stuck in the same epistemic pit.

 

[Fervent]

If you've made no arguments, then what is this thread about? Is it just the meaningless nothing that I always suspected it was? The whole thing is about some "problem" that is solved by you making a substitution of one concept with a (nearly?) identical concept. A difference you refused to explain.

Analysis of how words and concepts relate to one another.

Your faith is not relevant to anything here.

This is only partially correct, as what I am pointing out doesn't depend on my faith. But it is relevant to subscription to science as the final arbiter of truth or knowledge.

Rebellion against what? I just don't buy your metaphysical claims. Nor am I convinced by your self-assured statements.

That's between you and God. I have no interest in trying to settle up with you on that account.

whatever floats your boat, but your rudder is stuck to one side.

Nope, you just don't seem to comprehend semantic analysis. Which is not built on argumentation, but simply an examination of how words are understood.

How did the Bard put it: "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." If that's the kind of argument you with to make, you should expect no serious replies.

Again, I've performed an analysis not presented an argument. An argument may follow from this analysis, but the analysis itself does not depend on argumentation.

You're in the wrong section for preaching, pal. Nor am I interested in it.

I'm not preaching here, I'm performing semantic analysis based on empirical data. You just seem to fail to comprehend the analytic function because you've conflated physical and natural and have blinded yourself by a prior metaphysical commitment.

 

[SelfSim]

That's just a whole bunch of useless words. What science is and isn't is itself a model, and where to draw the lines isn't universally agreed upon. The only clear requirement is that there is an empirical component.

Science is defined by its well published and widely taught method which includes Objective empirical testing .. (and the results therefrom).
When last I looked, an hypothesis (such as MDR), means a testable proposition. Carefully considered testable propositions aren't a bunch of useless words in science.

Who defines what is and isn't science? Where do we mark the borders between empirical philosophy and scientific modeling?

Objective testability.

Yes, but so many fail to understand this basic fact.

Largely agree except the statement is subject to change with new results ..ie: not to be taken as '100% fact'. Science isn't seeking truths. People do that.. but science is sketchy when it comes to 'truth' concepts.

Science provides us with useful fictions with no ability to comment on its own reliability as a form of acquiring knowledge.

Science's purpose is practical usefulness.
The 'knowledge' measure in science, can be defined operationally too.
Science's 'reliability' is about consistency measures in choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences.
So "knowledge" boils down to 'track record' .. and nothing else. Certainly not the meaningless 'justified true belief'.

Models are fictions, as are maps.

Its useful to categorise different types of models.
Objective reality is a model, as are maps .. They're just different types of models ... (but they're still models).

There are no objective tests, as your own arguments point out.

I don't recall having made such a claim(?)
I think we differ in usage of the term 'objective'(?)
Any testable proposition (via the scientific method) is an objective test. Other propositions are beliefs. People can use either way when they describe their models of reality.

There are only hypothetical models and beliefs, truth is inaccessible if we are all just stuck in the same epistemic pit.

Yep .. I would say truth-seeking is a propostion which lacks practical utlilty value. (I acknowledge that you may, or are likely to disagree).
Such would be a demonstration of the distinction between scientific thinking .. and belief-based thinking.

 

[SelfSim]

Here's some food for thought citing a test from which we can infer the mind dependence of something made from concrete, or supposedly, as 'physically real' as a building, as still being mind dependent:

A typical conversational test might be:

Me: Please tell me something you regard as physically real (ie: existing);
Person#1: The Empire State building.

Me: Ok .. so the Empire State building is something you are sure exists independently of human minds?
Person#1: Yes.

Me: And why are you sure it exists?
Person#1: For reasons X, Y, and Z.

Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
Person#1: Yes.

Me: Those are the parts that aren't independent of your (human) mind.
... (And yet somehow, the Empire State building, supposedly, still is?)

 

[Fervent]

Science is defined by its well published and widely taught method which includes Objective empirical testing .. (and the results therefrom).
When last I looked, an hypothesis (such as MDR), means a testable proposition. Carefully considered testable propositions aren't a bunch of useless words in science.

Objective empirical testing? Where is this objective testing? All I see is consensus-based theories. Nothing objective about iit, except when it is idealized into something it sn't

Objective testability.

Tests only work in a limited scope. Sciientific methodologies can't justify taking the results of science as approaching fact. Especially since it isn't even exactly clear where the line between science and philosophy is when we get to certain questions.

Largely agree except the statement is subject to change with new results ..ie: not to be taken as '100% fact'. Science isn't seeking truths. People do that.. but science is sketchy when it comes to 'truth' concepts.

People tend to look to science to tell them what reality is like, throwing around false labels like "objective" when it is not truly objective but a matter of consensus understanding.

Science's purpose is practical usefulness.
The 'knowledge' measure in science, can be defined operationally too.
Science's 'reliability' is about consistency measures in choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences.
So "knowledge" boils down to 'track record' .. and nothing else. Certainly not the meaningless 'justified true belief'.

Perhaps, though science isn't some object floating around and most people seem to believe that science produces more than just utility. Justified true belief is certainly a meaningless concept, but questions of warranted and unwarranted belief are at least relevant to any discussion of what science is meant to accomplish. Most people don't think of it as a model, but instead presume that science discovers objective facts.

Its useful to categorise different types of models.
Objective reality is a model, as are maps .. They're just different types of models ... (but they're still models).

Our understandng of objective reality and objective reality are not the same thing. We may produce a model of reality that we presume is close to what objective reality is like, but the philosophical questions have bearing on how reliable we can take those models. Science is too often idealized even if some within the scientific community do recognize that what they are producing are working fictions subject to alteration. Analytic philosophy is at the very least extremely relevant to questions of whether a belief has warrant or not, and science at least is interested in identifying warranted beliefs.

I don't recall having made such a claim(?)
I think we differ in usage of the term 'objective'(?)
Any testable proposition (via the scientific method) is an objective test. Other propositions are beliefs. People can use either way when they describe their models of reality.

I'm using objective in its typical sense, which is to say nothing more than true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. Science can only attain intersubjective agreements upon theoretical models. But the words we use like "objective" and "physical" tend to be prejudicial rather than iilluminating.

Yep .. I would say truth-seeking is a propostion which lacks practical utlilty value. (I acknowledge that you may, or are likely to disagree).
Such would be a demonstration of the distinction between scientific thinking .. and belief-based thinking.

Seems to me you're twisting yourself into knots to abandon responsibility for any claims you may make. If you have no interest in seeking truth, why speak of scientific knowledge at all?

 

[SelfSim]

Objective empirical testing? Where is this objective testing? All I see is consensus-based theories. Nothing objective about iit, except when it is idealized into something it sn't

Tests only work in a limited scope. Sciientific methodologies can't justify taking the results of science as approaching fact. Especially since it isn't even exactly clear where the line between science and philosophy is when we get to certain questions.

People tend to look to science to tell them what reality is like, throwing around false labels like "objective" when it is not truly objective but a matter of consensus understanding.

Perhaps, though science isn't some object floating around and most people seem to believe that science produces more than just utility. Justified true belief is certainly a meaningless concept, but questions of warranted and unwarranted belief are at least relevant to any discussion of what science is meant to accomplish. Most people don't think of it as a model, but instead presume that science discovers objective facts.

Our understandng of objective reality and objective reality are not the same thing. We may produce a model of reality that we presume is close to what objective reality is like, but the philosophical questions have bearing on how reliable we can take those models. Science is too often idealized even if some within the scientific community do recognize that what they are producing are working fictions subject to alteration. Analytic philosophy is at the very least extremely relevant to questions of whether a belief has warrant or not, and science at least is interested in identifying warranted beliefs.

I'm using objective in its typical sense, which is to say nothing more than true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. Science can only attain intersubjective agreements upon theoretical models. But the words we use like "objective" and "physical" tend to be prejudicial rather than iilluminating.

Hmm ... seems some work is needed to be done on 'objective'(?)

Some time ago I took some tidbits from a web search on the adjective "objective." It's actually quite a mess .. what you see is people bending over so far backward to try to interpret "objectivity" in a mind-independent way that the meanings they intend are clearly internally inconsistent. Here are just a few examples that positively squirm in their own inconsistencies:

1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

So here, we see that "objective" is supposed to be an attitude we have about facts. So what it is trying to say is that "facts are objective", but it recognizes that this only passes the buck to the definition of what constitutes a "fact." To address that obvious problem, the definition stresses the relation of the mind to the fact, and tries to find objectivity in what is absent from that relationship-- in short, "feelings or opinions", things we normally associate with mind dependence. However, the definition is still explicitly referring to the relationship that a mind has with the facts, because how else are you going to determine if that mind was involving itself in feelings or opinions, unless you consider the functioning of that mind? Hence, in trying to remove the role of the mind in the definition of objectivity, the definition gives the mind a specific role. Try defining objectivity without reference to a mind at all, and this will become even clearer.

2) "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book."

This shows the same misguided effort. Here, we have that objectivity is about dealing with things "external to the mind", but notice the very first word: "intent". I wonder what it is that they are imagining has the "intention" of dealing with things external to the mind .. a rock?

3) "of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Here we see the same phenomenon again, though raised to a new level. We actually have in the same sentence that the object or part of an object should be "independent of thought", yet also be something that "can be known." Seriously? It can be known, in a way that is independent of knowing? Observed, in a way that is independent of the observer? That's just rich, I can't wait for them to tell me how to set up an experiment that establishes an observation that is independent of the observer! It really shows how badly people trip over themselves when they just try way too hard to maintain belief in mind independent reality, in situations where it simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[Fervent]

Hmm ... seems some work is needed to be done on 'objective'(?)

Some time ago I took some tidbits from a web search on the adjective "objective." It's actually quite a mess .. what you see is people bending over so far backward to try to interpret "objectivity" in a mind-independent way that the meanings they intend are clearly internally inconsistent. Here are just a few examples that positively squirm in their own inconsistencies:

1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

So here, we see that "objective" is supposed to be an attitude we have about facts. So what it is trying to say is that "facts are objective", but it recognizes that this only passes the buck to the definition of what constitutes a "fact." To address that obvious problem, the definition stresses the relation of the mind to the fact, and tries to find objectivity in what is absent from that relationship-- in short, "feelings or opinions", things we normally associate with mind dependence. However, the definition is still explicitly referring to the relationship that a mind has with the facts, because how else are you going to determine if that mind was involving itself in feelings or opinions, unless you consider the functioning of that mind? Hence, in trying to remove the role of the mind in the definition of objectivity, the definition gives the mind a specific role. Try defining objectivity without reference to a mind at all, and this will become even clearer.

2) "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book."

This shows the same misguided effort. Here, we have that objectivity is about dealing with things "external to the mind", but notice the very first word: "intent". I wonder what it is that they are imagining has the "intention" of dealing with things external to the mind .. a rock?

3) "of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Here we see the same phenomenon again, though raised to a new level. We actually have in the same sentence that the object or part of an object should be "independent of thought", yet also be something that "can be known." Seriously? It can be known, in a way that is independent of knowing? Observed, in a way that is independent of the observer? That's just rich, I can't wait for them to tell me how to set up an experiment that establishes an observation that is independent of the observer! It really shows how badly people trip over themselves when they just try way too hard to maintain belief in mind independent reality, in situations where it simply doesn't make any sense.

I think we're at a general agreement on the epistemic mess defining "objective" creates, but pragmatically speaking we can't go around pretending what we believe to be the fount of knowledge is dependent upon our acceptance of that state of affairs. Pragmatically speaking, we can accept science as one model of reality and see how its methods lead to a coherent model so long as we don't pop the hood and look into its engine(our justification for believing science is reliable). At the end of the day, we either accept circular reasoning or dogmatic statements. Infinite regress is hypothetically possible, but given that no one can trace back an infinite chan of reasoning asserting that there is an infinite regress is itself either taken dogmatically or reasoned circularly. The only thing using a descriptor for scientific theories as "objective" or "factual" is to prejudice the search for truth and insert a metaphysical conclusion into the assumptive framework that is required to practice scientific inquiry.

 

[SelfSim]

I think we're at a general agreement on the epistemic mess defining "objective" creates, but pragmatically speaking we can't go around pretending what we believe to be the fount of knowledge is dependent upon our acceptance of that state of affairs. Pragmatically speaking, we can accept science as one model of reality and see how its methods lead to a coherent model so long as we don't pop the hood and look into its engine(our justification for believing science is reliable). At the end of the day, we either accept circular reasoning or dogmatic statements. Infinite regress is hypothetically possible, but given that no one can trace back an infinite chan of reasoning asserting that there is an infinite regress is itself either taken dogmatically or reasoned circularly. The only thing using a descriptor for scientific theories as "objective" or "factual" is to prejudice the search for truth and insert a metaphysical conclusion into the assumptive framework that is required to practice scientific inquiry.

.. or, give up on the believed-in assumption that there is a searchable and hence, a discoverable, 'truth' out there in the first place and instead seek a method which can demonstrate measures of consistency in choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has practical consequences.
If so, welcome to science!
It ain't perfect .. but its better than the alternatives.

 

[Fervent]

.. or, give up on the believed-in assumption that there is a searchable and hence, a discoverable, 'truth' out there in the first place and instead seek a method which can demonstrate measures of consistency in choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has practical consequences.
If so, welcome to science!
It ain't perfect .. but its better than the alternatives.

So the search for so-called "scientific knowledge" begins by abandoning searching for truth? I mean, if you want to claim to know something and refuse any external justification of that supposed knowledge thats all well and good. But if truth isn't discoverable, then all you're doing by looking to science to justify science is engaging in blatant circular reasoning. I, for one, do not wish to abandon the search for truth. But if getting to science requires such an abandonment, then it produces nothing but a false sense of knowledge. It's nothing but fool's gold.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Analysis of how words and concepts relate to one another.

An analysis that lacks definition of or differentiation between the two most critical words. Some analysis of semantics that is.

This is only partially correct, as what I am pointing out doesn't depend on my faith. But it is relevant to subscription to science as the final arbiter of truth or knowledge.

That's between you and God. I have no interest in trying to settle up with you on that account.

Then keep you god out of it.

Nope, you just don't seem to comprehend semantic analysis. Which is not built on argumentation, but simply an examination of how words are understood.

Again, I've performed an analysis not presented an argument. An argument may follow from this analysis, but the analysis itself does not depend on argumentation.

You do realize this is the science section, not the philosophical analysis section, right?

I'm not preaching here, I'm performing semantic analysis based on empirical data.

So when you say "I preach, I do not argue" that does mean anything. Got it.

You just seem to fail to comprehend the analytic function because you've conflated physical and natural and have blinded yourself by a prior metaphysical commitment.

I always like it when people tell me what my commitments are (not). Since you've provided no indication of what you think differentiates "physical" and "natural", why should I bother?

 

[Fervent]

An analysis that lacks definition of or differentiation between the two most critical words. Some analysis of semantics that is.

Analytic philosophy doesn't begin by defining words, that would defeat the whole purpose of it. Analysis compares our usage of words to determine the relationship. Clearly you don't understand the meaning of "analysis" in the philosophic sense.

Then keep you god out of it.

I'm not the one who brought it up, the only thing I am doing is pointing to an illicit metaphysical understanding that is embedded in key scientific concepts.

You do realize this is the science section, not the philosophical analysis section, right?

In some areas the distinction becomes blurry. The mind-body problem is one of them.

So when you say "I preach, I do not argue" that does mean anything. Got it.

When I intend to speak of my faith, I do so by way of preaching. Here I merely am attackng metaphysical baggage that is snuck into basic scientific principles.

I always like it when people tell me what my commitments are (not). Since you've provided no indication of what you think differentiates "physical" and "natural", why should I bother?

The fact that changing the word resolves a conflict in observed realities demonstrates they are not the same thing. The analytic process reveals that they are not interchangeable, just because you don't understand the analysis doesn't mean it isn't revealing hidden assumptions.

 

[SelfSim]

So the search for so-called "scientific knowledge" begins by abandoning searching for truth? I mean, if you want to claim to know something and refuse any external justification of that supposed knowledge thats all well and good. But if truth isn't discoverable, then all you're doing by looking to science to justify science is engaging in blatant circular reasoning. I, for one, do not wish to abandon the search for truth. But if getting to science requires such an abandonment, then it produces nothing but a false sense of knowledge. It's nothing but fool's gold.

My motivation isn't sp much about searching for truth .. more like curiosity or inquisitiveness. Other people can still have their own motivations but be aware, the science process doesn't highlight what is an appropriate motivation and what isn't.

An analogy purely for illustrative puposes, which seems appropriate here, is: you are a pandhandler looking for gold in the California gold rush, and for the first 9 days, you panhandle 9 different streams, finding nothing. On the 10th day, in the 10th stream you find gold in the bottom of your pan. What are you going to do on the 11th day?

There is no concern with "circular reasoning" or whether or not it is safe to assume you will find gold on day 11. All you want is more gold, and all you do is adopt a strategy to get it. You can do whatever you want, form any expectation you want, but you will know if you got the gold or not. Science is just a strategy for getting the gold, and we have found it to be the worst possible strategy-- except for all the rest.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The fact that changing the word resolves a conflict in observed realities demonstrates they are not the same thing. The analytic process reveals that they are not interchangeable, just because you don't understand the analysis doesn't mean it isn't revealing hidden assumptions.

HOW does that change the "result"? What is it about the alleged "difference" between "physical" and "natural" that solves this problem.

 

[Fervent]

My motivation isn't sp much about searching for truth .. more like curiosity or inquisitiveness. Other people can still have their own motivations but be aware, the science process doesn't highlight what is an appropriate motivation and what isn't.

Curiousity about what, if not what can be determined to be true? This sounds like a game of semantic musical chairs.

An analogy purely for illustrative puposes, which seems appropriate here, is: you are a pandhandler looking for gold in the California gold rush, and for the first 9 days, you panhandle 9 different streams, finding nothing. On the 10th day, in the 10th stream you find gold in the bottom of your pan. What are you going to do on the 11th day?

What is this supposed gold?

There is no concern with "circular reasoning" or whether or not it is safe to assume you will find gold on day 11. All you want is more gold, and all you do is adopt a strategy to get it. You can do whatever you want, form any expectation you want, but you will know if you got the gold or not. Science is just a strategy for getting the gold, and we have found it to be the worst possible strategy-- except for all the rest.

Except all that you are truly finding is fool's gold, satisfying yourself with a cheap alternative.

 

[Fervent]

HOW does that change the "result"? What is it about the alleged "difference" between "physical" and "natural" that solves this problem.

The analysis isn't about providing a theoretical descriptiion, it's about identifying the problem term in the set of propositions. The conflict dissolves, which is a kind of solution. What the analysis indicates is that the principal issue in this specific mind-body problem is physicalist metaphysics. There's no need for me to provide any definitions, because the only interest is word-concept relationships. It's an empirical test of how we use words, your lack of understanding of the test isn't a weakness of the test it's a weakness of your comprehension.

 

[SelfSim]

Except all that you are truly finding is fool's gold, satisfying yourself with a cheap alternative.

Maybe .. maybe not. Either way, its more useful than moving on to Stream#11 on day 11 and finding nothing.