Causal exclusion problem

[Ana the Ist]

Einstein was a scientist, specifically a physicist. His degrees were in physics. He published in physics journals. He went to physics conferences.

The ideas Einstein worked were about physical systems and the nature of the properties of the physical laws. Mathematics is the tool used to express these ideas and evaluate their consequences. When working on general relativity, Einstein often went to more mathematically skilled friends like Marcel Grossmann for help with the math.

I consider him a scientist....I'm aware that you probably did.

I don't know what @SelfSim does but he seems to regard science with reverence so...I didn't want to assume too much.

Edit- starting to think he's not a scientist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are 'pointers'

What are these pointers?

There was way more basis for what Einstein did than 'nothing more than math and logic'.

I was thinking specifically of a certain type of star he predicted to exist.

That's right .. science was always there in our minds .. but humans hadn't explored that part of their minds.

No....it wasn't.

No evidence there for any 'mind independent anything existing'.

I'm not saying that I can prove the belief.

In fact, the idea of mind independent anythings is at worst, completely nonsensical

Completely nonsensical?

Do you think that the entire universe disappears while you sleep and reforms upon you waking?

.. or at best; just a belief used as an efficient short cut for moving forward with science.

I don't see what it would be a shortcut to.

You have no concept/models or instances of other human minds, beside that of your own?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

What I can say is that I have no idea how anyone else thinks with any certainty.

I'd have to say that you've ignored the objective evidence

If you don't believe in an objective reality existing....how in the world would you begin to claim to have any objective evidence????

It would have to exist objectively....apart from your perception.

I promise...we can do this all day...but don't sit there and talk about objective evidence if you don't believe in an objective reality.

Is 'an answer' there, objectively testable?

This is a nonsensical question from someone claiming to not believe in an objective reality.

How would it be objectively testable?

Stop referring to this objective reality you don't believe in....if you don't believe in it, you're limited entirely to your own experiences and whatever abstraction you can imagine. Subjective reality.

 

[Fervent]

Great...we'll come back to this.




Then why both with the problem? You called the propositions "facts" above so you either want posters to consider them true or you do yourself. I don't care which. Simply stating the obvious.

You're still not understandng, there's no theoretical element to the propositions. They aren't true or false propositions, in the same way a measurement isn't a true or false proposition. They're the relevant facts a theory of mind is needed to explain.

The problem doesn't address any definition of "natural".

Doesn't need to. Again, this is a faling in your understanding.

You took one of those facts and "altered" it into something else. That's the only way to break the law of identity.

I didn't alter it, I separated it into two terms. The whole elements didn't change, except separating it allowed me to remove an assumption.

He's literally a physics professor if I'm not mistaken. I believe that what he is saying is that the metaphysical presuppositions that can be found at the beginning of his discipline aren't matters of consideration for him, nor does he need them to be, to justify his understanding of physics. He's correct in this.

This doesn't mean that his metaphysical understanding doesn't change his perception of the world. Doing math is one thing, but interpreting what that math means is a whole other thing.

And this makes sense now that you've explained at the bottom that basic experiences are things you consider true.

They aren't things to consider true or false. They're data points and observations which a theory needs to address. Just because it's not a formalized collection process doesn't make the data any less significant.

Even though you consider the terms rather meaningless?

I consider the way people merge the terms meaningless. Essentially, if we speak of nature as self-referential then it's a trivial truth. It's a statement of the law of identity and nothing more. But when we apply an assumpton that has a synthetic meaning such as superimposing "physical" onto "natural" we are adding an understanding without justification. There is a loose understanding of what is meant by "physical" even if it is difficult to define exactly, but whatever that definiton is it would be stretching it to the point of unrecognizablity to include basic mental phenomena. Which is kind of the point of this exercise, we have a physical base to understand the world from and a mental base. Neither seems to be dependent but they aren't independent either. There are correlates, but what can be drawn from those correlates is an open question.

Exactly. I don't want us to speak past each other. I don't want to misunderstand you, and I don't want you to misunderstand me.

That's good, though these sorts of interactions tend to involve a bit of competitive elements ratehr than dispassonate discussion. We're not talking about accesory facts but we're getting down to the foundations of our epistemologies. The "worldview" assumptions, if you will.

You will below.

Amazing I was able to deduce this, right?



You mean for the propositions.




This is you describing them as true.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

You'll notice the definition of fact is inherently intertwined with statements of truth.

All of this seems to just be confusion on your part.

Well then think of another word than "facts" to describe them. Facts are more than beliefs...they are what we consider to truly exist in reality.

And these things are more than beliefs, they are descriptions of basic experiences. And its an accepted problem in theories of mind which is apparent from the number of theories that attempt to answer the problem by denying various propositions through ad hoc definitions.

Hmmm...





I'll agree they are hiding assumptions....or perhaps haven't considered them....but I don't see the problem with that. It's nice that you're upfront with your assumptions....but most aren't.

At the end of the day, we all make some unjustified assumption that places truth beyond our grasp if the only thing available to us is the epistemic gutter we live in.

I've given you one of mine which I cannot possibly prove nor justify. Try to consider me honest. It's not a problem for me if people don't regard truth carefully....most of the time.

I'm sorry if I've approached you in a hostile manner, in my view these kinds of conversations are combat and my "job" in them is to make people eat their own words. It's something I'm working on.

No need for insults...it was an honest question and important to the discussion.

It's not meant as an insult, rather a reference to Biblical advice.

I didn't say 1...I said few. I wish I could agree...but I don't.

The most "reasonable" method I get to what I believe to be true begins with an ontological argument by defining God as that which can only be defined in terms of itself, and then I liink that with the given name of God in the Bible. I corroborate it with other modes of inquiry, but ultimately it all comes down to nothing more than a hope and a prayer.

That's not what you did? That's what I did?

I didn't bother with definitions, exactly. I split one of the terms into two without abandoning the essential meaning of the original term. It's certainly worth questioning which is why I don't hold this as a decisive blow, but it's not the same thing as forcing a definition that doesn't fit on something else. My move was methodical, yours ad hoc.

Solutions are Solutions....not sure why ad hoc solutions are an issue. I'm not sure why you believe your solution isn't ad hoc.

Nope, not all solutions are equivalent. Otherwise there would be no purpose for epistemology. Generally, ad hoc solutions are disfavored which is why principles like Occam's razor are so often brought out. If a solution can be had that doesn't require ad hoc moves, that's generally the preferrable solution.

If you're talking about the solutions I presented....I was merely throwing out a few off the top of my head for fun while dropping a duece. They appear to work but again, I came up with them rather quickly just to make a point.

I'm referring to physicalist responses in general. There are basically 3 classes of answer. Epiphenomenal thoughts, which undermines all attempts to justify science, reduction which may as well be epiphenomenal since if it reduces then there is no place for it within the theory, and non-reductionist responses which end up being difficult to see how they remain physical theories at all. There are a lot of robust solutions, but that the general epistemology for these kinds of problems(which is generally to suspect the problem is in the terms) raises some red flags as far as notions of falsification on a broad level are concerned.

I'm not holding one as my personal belief.

That's fine, but that doesn't really address your supposed objection that it isn't a problem.

At the bottom.





I bet those are scary possibilities to you.

Not at this point, and my conviction isn't driven by fear.

You don't have anything to fear from me. I won't try to convince you to drop your religion. I would ask you to consider it's role in any possible motivation for the thread.

How very noble of you. My life is to serve Christ, so growing the kingdom is always part of my motives for starting threads. But questioning motives is nothing more than an ad hominem if it's used as argumentation. The question boils down to whether or not there is smoke in the kitchen, regardless of why I am crying fire.

I have a sneaking suspicion for what his name is and how to communicate with him. I'm not interested in finding out.

I'm not sure the name itself is all that important. Though attaching it to the history certainly is for me personally. But we'll get back to this.

Ok...without any elaborating on what "ordinary investigation" means...or conjecture and falsification....we can skip modeling entirely....it's rather clear now why you keep throwing around the words you do.

Look up the "problem of criterion".

There's no real solutions to the problem, so all paths are unjustified, though the various paths people have come up with have either proven track records or not.

Those "paths to truth" tend to begin with at least one unprovable or unfalsifiable claim.




Ty for the honesty.

It's nothing more than a statement of my philosophical skepticism. I have convictiion that I believe is reasonable, but given the state of learning I hardly believe I can attain knowledge.

I wouldn't recommend seeking truth if you want to be happy. Truth doesn't care. Regardless, I think I understand how you approach truth, I won't properly name them....because you might feel insulted and you shouldn't.

Oh, but Truth does care. Truth died for a world that hates Him, for a world that mocks and scorns Him. Truth is the only thing of value in this world. The pearl without price. Why would I settle for less?

As to the problem....

These are empirical propositions or conjectures because they have not been proven true. They were only considered philosophically interesting because of the limitations of when they were proposed.

Yeah, they are empirical propositions that require theoretical explanation, that's exactly what I stated they are. They aren't things to consider true or false because they are basic common experience.

You're correct that the problem described is one of logical contradiction. Adding 1 to the other 3 and the logical contradiction occurs. This strongly suggests that at least one, if not more, of the propositions is untrue.

Yeah, and generally when such a contradiction arises the first move, logically, is to look for an error in our terms. Which is what I looked for, and found a suspect.

That said, we need not consider them true or consider the problem....and as I stated before, enough evidence for the brain actively creating the mind or "thinking" has surfaced to suggest this is the most likely explanation.

The problem remains a problem even if we try not to think about it. The empirical propositions and the logical contradiction within them remains a problem theories of mind must address in some way. It's a border point of science and philosophy, in the wild frontier where the lines start to blur and there isn't a settled philosophical approach to prefer in scientific research. So while it is, in a way, philosophy it isn't speculative philosophy but an empirical philosophy that seeks to clarify our semantics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yeah.

Ok

So somehow basic experience can be misleading, but when we start measuring suddenly our experiences are magically no longer misleading? Science begins with experiences, and there's no reason to treat measuring as any more reliable than basic experience. What you are doing is special pleading for measurements, which is rather amusing.

Your amusement notwithstanding, much of the necessary development in the methods of science that differentiate it from other endeavors have been to counter the bias toward the common experience, to question the interpretation of naive understanding and to dig for what is actually going on no matter how unfamiliar or non-intuitive it may seem.

The conflict is apparent in the literature. Just because your metaphysics blind you to the problem doesn't make it go away.

An interesting turn of phrase "in the literature". It makes me think that this problem is not even standard fare in the texts of undergraduate courses in philosophy. I can't say so with any certitude as I have never taken such a course. Have you? I'm not sure why you would expect familiarity of such in the science section of an online forum.

There's no reliance on definitions here. This type of analysis is neutral to semantic content, which is kind of the whole point.

Only to the willfully blind.

This "willful blindness" claim has grown tiresome and insulting.

It's one of the points where the lines get blurry between science and philosophy. What science is and how it explains things iisn't a disembodied fact of nature, and the propositions the problem depends on are base experiences. Willful denial of the problem is just evidence of your own biases clouding your thinking.

You've made no demonstration of understanding of how science works operationally. I see no reason to take your opinions on the topic as having any value.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was thinking specifically of a certain type of star he predicted to exist.

Einstein didn't predict black holes (which aren't actually stars), though their existence can be predicted from solutions to Einsteins field equations. He even tried to *disprove* their existence, but failed (as they actually do exist and his field equations have passed every test).

 

[SelfSim]

What are these pointers?

I'm really trying to avoid diverting this thread towards yet another discussion on the Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) paradigm, so I'll try and be brief and leave the rest for another time.
I use the term 'pointers' as nothing more than a logical inference from a vantage point of MDR, that allows for the possibility that 'something' other than minds may at work within MDR. Its deliberately meant to be a tenuous notion .. a bare minimum to admit the possibility and to not portray the MDR paradigm as philosophical Absolutism, (which it isn't .. its a tentative Hypothesis, subject to change with new data and which generates abundant objective evidence supporting the hypothesis contentions).
'Pointers' signifies consistencies and regularities we notice in our sensory perceptional models, which typically leads Realists towards believing in the existence of a mind independent (or 'physical something'). These MDR admissable 'pointers' however can provide direction but impart no information regarding their final destination, or the structure of that destination. The source of consistencies and regularities we notice in our sensory perceptional models, remains as a mystery, which motivates further investigation and development of our models of what I call 'Objective' reality. 'Objective' here, denotes the method by which those models are distlilled using our minds .. (and not some generalised, useless dictionary definition of that term).

No....it wasn't.

Displays of ouright denialism are unconvincing.

I'm not saying that I can prove the belief.

I was requesting evidence (and not proofs) .. and we can demonstrate that's exactly what it is though, (see my previous operational definition of belief).

Completely nonsensical?
Do you think that the entire universe disappears while you sleep and reforms upon you waking?

Its not just my mind I'm talking about .. its any (healthy) human mind whatsoever, including the ones doing the hypothesizing in any hypotheticals which may come up as a counter. (Ie: the minds typically completely ignored/deleted from the objective MDR test results, for no reasons other than to sustain some believe or other).

I don't see what it would be a shortcut to.

It cuts down on lengthy explanations which can be superfluous and distracting in certain conversations.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

Fair enough .. (I was being rhetorical for illustrative purposes ).

What I can say is that I have no idea how anyone else thinks with any certainty.

Yet you understand the meanings they communicate ..
Certainty is idealistic .. uncertainty isn't.

If you don't believe in an objective reality existing....how in the world would you begin to claim to have any objective evidence????

It would have to exist objectively....apart from your perception.

I promise...we can do this all day...but don't sit there and talk about objective evidence if you don't believe in an objective reality.

I tried to clarify above that when I use the term, it refers to 'the how' (or method) by which a distinct meaning of reality is inferred. The method is the scientific objective method .. hence its model is: 'Objective' reality .. Its a bottoms-up method and not a top down one .. the latter of which there, starts out making assumptions or syllogisms. Science starts with no such 'true' (or conditional) assumptions about reality .. it tests assumptions, or discards them when they aren't testable.

This is a nonsensical question from someone claiming to not believe in an objective reality.

How would it be objectively testable?

Stop referring to this objective reality you don't believe in....if you don't believe in it, you're limited entirely to your own experiences and whatever abstraction you can imagine. Subjective reality.

See above.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They're the relevant facts a theory of mind is needed to explain.

Pick a different word or find definition of facts that isn't related to truth.

You can't tell me they aren't true one breath and call them facts the next. If they aren't true....they aren't factual.

Doesn't need to.

Why switch the word then? It has no utility nor does it make anything clearer.

I didn't alter it, I separated it into two terms.

And threw one out. That' an alteration.

If not, then you're saying natural=physical and you've solved absolutely nothing.

This doesn't mean that his metaphysical understanding doesn't change his perception of the world. Doing math is one thing, but interpreting what that math means is a whole other thing.

Is math up for interpretation in your mind?

They aren't things to consider true or false.

Then stop calling them facts. If they aren't true...no problem of contradiction exists.

I consider the way people merge the terms meaningless. Essentially, if we speak of nature as self-referential then it's a trivial truth. It's a statement of the law of identity and nothing more. But when we apply an assumpton that has a synthetic meaning such as superimposing "physical" onto "natural" we are adding an understanding without justification.

This is you admitting that natural and physical aren't the same.

You by extension have admitted to a logical fallacy if you believe this is a logical problem.

Which is kind of the point of this exercise, we have a physical base to understand the world from and a mental base.

I think the point is a chance for you to learn about philosophy.

All of this seems to just be confusion on your part.

I've given you ample time to explain.

And these things are more than beliefs, they are descriptions of basic experiences.

Personal anecdotes....sure. I don't consider that evidence in this sort of discussion. They certainly don't require my agreement in any way.

At the end of the day, we all make some unjustified assumption

Agreed.

I'm sorry if I've approached you in a hostile manner

Already forgiven.

It's not meant as an insult, rather a reference to Biblical advice.

Sure but I'm the swine in that analogy lol...it's not the first time. Not a problem.

The most "reasonable" method I get to what I believe to be true begins with an ontological argument by defining God as that which can only be defined in terms of itself, and then I liink that with the given name of God in the Bible. I corroborate it with other modes of inquiry, but ultimately it all comes down to nothing more than a hope and a prayer.

Dogma....trust in other's claims. We all do it, I simply pick different people for different reasons under different circumstances.

Nope, not all solutions are equivalent.

I didn't claim they were. I only listed possible ones.

Otherwise there would be no purpose for epistemology. Generally, ad hoc solutions are disfavored which is why principles like Occam's razor are so often brought out. If a solution can be had that doesn't require ad hoc moves, that's generally the preferrable solution.

Never seen that part of Occam's razor. An ad hoc solution is tailored to the problem so it seems Occam would likely approve.

I'm referring to physicalist responses in general. There are basically 3 classes of answer. Epiphenomenal thoughts, which undermines all attempts to justify science, reduction which may as well be epiphenomenal since if it reduces then there is no place for it within the theory, and non-reductionist responses which end up being difficult to see how they remain physical theories at all.

I'm not big into physicalist philosophy.

There are a lot of robust solutions, but that the general epistemology for these kinds of problems(which is generally to suspect the problem is in the terms) raises some red flags as far as notions of falsification on a broad level are concerned.

Ok.

That's fine, but that doesn't really address your supposed objection that it isn't a problem.

It isn't.

Not at this point, and my conviction isn't driven by fear.

Who are you trying to convince then?

I'm not sure anyone thinks this is a problem apart from yourself.

How very noble of you. My life is to serve Christ, so growing the kingdom is always part of my motives for starting threads. But questioning motives is nothing more than an ad hominem

I'm just suggesting that you consider your own motives. I'm not going to argue them.

It's nothing more than a statement of my philosophical skepticism. I have convictiion that I believe is reasonable, but given the state of learning I hardly believe I can attain knowledge.

Ok...you're starting to convince me of the same lol.

Oh, but Truth does care.

Can you think of any truths you find unpleasant or emotionally uncomfortable?

I believe that total war is the only viable war theory and therefore justifies the utter annihilation of a people under certain circumstances.

Restrained war is temporary war and as such, will inevitably end after it gets too costly or unpopular. As such, a people at war must break the will of their enemy to fight...and without the threat of total loss of everything, few people will stop fighting.

This is an uncomfortable truth for me and I don't typically share it...but there you go.

Your turn. Tell me something true that's ugly or unpleasant or emotionally unsatisfying.

Yeah, they are empirical propositions that require theoretical explanation, that's exactly what I stated they are.

Great...as propositions we disagree with, no problem exists.

They aren't things to consider true or false because they are basic common experience.

No...they aren't. They are quite clearly propositional claims about reality. If the physical and mental are entirely separate....I don't see how you or I or anyone else would know this or "experience" it.

I'd argue that your ability to perceive anything is inherently because mental processes are tied to physical ones.

Yeah, and generally when such a contradiction arises the first move, logically, is to look for an error in our terms. Which is what I looked for, and found a suspect.

And you fixed that error by changing it to something else...

Which breaks the law of identity. If you don't believe these are true or factual than quite literally nobody here does.

See how that isn't a problem?

The problem remains a problem even if we try not to think about it. The empirical propositions and the logical contradiction within them remains a problem theories of mind must address in some way.

Propositions aren't facts. We can ignore the contradiction because we have evidence that these propositions aren't true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm really trying to avoid diverting this thread towards yet another discussion on the Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) paradigm,

Mind Dependent Reality huh......

I'll have to read up on that. It sounds like that self help guru stuff that went around awhile back....I think it was "The Secret" where the central claim was that thinking about stuff made it happen or manifest. Big hit for a year then ultimately in the trash.

so I'll try and be brief and leave the rest for another time.
I use the term 'pointers' as nothing more than a logical inference from a vantage point of MDR, that allows for the possibility that 'something' other than minds may at work within MDR.

Seems like this possibility of something makes reality independent of the mind in certain ways.

Go on...

Its deliberately meant to be a tenuous notion .. a bare minimum to admit the possibility and to not portray the MDR paradigm as philosophical Absolutism, (which it isn't .. its a tentative Hypothesis, subject to change with new data and which generates abundant objective evidence supporting the hypothesis contentions).

At this point....it sounds like an argument to retreat to whenever MDR doesn't hold up on its own.

Again though...if you're talking about objective evidence....you're believing in objective reality. If reality is dependent upon the mind....you can only have subjective evidence and only for yourself.

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

That's what I mean by objective reality. That's what I see a belief in whenever you mention objective evidence.

If there's some other definition you're using....please share it.

'Pointers' signifies consistencies and regularities we notice in our sensory perceptional models,

What's the "we" stuff?...if you think others exist apart from your subjective experience of them....see above.

which typically leads Realists towards believing in the existence of a mind independent (or 'physical something').

No kidding.

These MDR admissable 'pointers' however can provide direction but impart no information regarding their final destination, or the structure of that destination.

You've already made the concept overly complicated.

How about a practical example of a pointer?

The source of consistencies and regularities we notice in our sensory perceptional models,

What consistencies?

remains as a mystery, which motivates further investigation and development of our models of what I call 'Objective' reality. 'Objective' here, denotes the method by which those models are distlilled using our minds .. (and not some generalised, useless dictionary definition of that term).

I would say the dictionary term holds more utility than yours. After all....I can never know your method nor can you ever know mine, nor can we agree or disagree even if for some strange reason you believe I exist.

If the objective reality is dependent upon the models created by your mind....then it's just a subjective reality, and these models should hold some sway over it. It doesn't seem like they do.

Displays of ouright denialism are unconvincing.

If I was concerned with convincing you at one point...I promise that concern is gone.

I daresay, if you've tried to steer multiple threads this direction....it's probably been a difficult idea to sell anyone on....huh?

I was requesting evidence

Since we don't share the same idea of objective....I certainly have no clue what you consider evidence, or why.

Its not just my mind I'm talking about

How would you talk about any other? What possible excuse could you make for believing other minds exist?

They would have to exist in an objective reality apart from your mind.

It's as if you believe you're having a conversation with yourself here.

Yet you understand the meanings they communicate ..
Certainty is idealistic .. uncertainty isn't.

Guy...that's only as long as we're using the same definitions. If you choose your own personal definition of words....I've got no clue what you're saying.

This is illustrated rather practically in your above description of "pointers" and definition of "objective" your request for "evidence" and in spite of your insistence upon a MDR the talk of other minds existing independently of yours....which can only exist independently of yours.

I tried to clarify above that when I use the term, it refers to 'the how' (or method)

I know...I'm telling you now, it's far less clear. Can you reword it or give me a different word? Why co-opt "objective" if not some agenda that involves living in a fantasy land? Why not make a new word?

The method is the scientific objective method

I'm sorry...but it's not. The scientific method assumes the existence of an objective reality. If it didn't....there's no need or use for the method.

What sort of science are you in?

hence its model is: 'Objective' reality .. Its a bottoms-up method and not a top down one

It's a narcissistic method and not a humble one.

.. the latter of which there, starts out making assumptions or syllogisms. Science starts with no such 'true' (or conditional) assumptions about reality

Of course it does...what exactly do you imagine you're making assumptions about or testing?

Imaginary reality?

See above.

I'll be waiting on your next post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm really trying to avoid diverting this thread towards yet another discussion on the Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) paradigm, so I'll try and be brief and leave the rest for another time.
I use the term 'pointers' as nothing more than a logical inference from a vantage point of MDR, that allows for the possibility that 'something' other than minds may at work within MDR. Its deliberately meant to be a tenuous notion .. a bare minimum to admit the possibility and to not portray the MDR paradigm as philosophical Absolutism, (which it isn't .. its a tentative Hypothesis, subject to change with new data and which generates abundant objective evidence supporting the hypothesis contentions).
'Pointers' signifies consistencies and regularities we notice in our sensory perceptional models, which typically leads Realists towards believing in the existence of a mind independent (or 'physical something'). These MDR admissable 'pointers' however can provide direction but impart no information regarding their final destination, or the structure of that destination. The source of consistencies and regularities we notice in our sensory perceptional models, remains as a mystery, which motivates further investigation and development of our models of what I call 'Objective' reality. 'Objective' here, denotes the method by which those models are distlilled using our minds .. (and not some generalised, useless dictionary definition of that term).

Displays of ouright denialism are unconvincing.

I was requesting evidence (and not proofs) .. and we can demonstrate that's exactly what it is though, (see my previous operational definition of belief).

Its not just my mind I'm talking about .. its any (healthy) human mind whatsoever, including the ones doing the hypothesizing in any hypotheticals which may come up as a counter. (Ie: the minds typically completely ignored/deleted from the objective MDR test results, for no reasons other than to sustain some believe or other).

It cuts down on lengthy explanations which can be superfluous and distracting in certain conversations.

Fair enough .. (I was being rhetorical for illustrative purposes ).

Yet you understand the meanings they communicate ..
Certainty is idealistic .. uncertainty isn't.

I tried to clarify above that when I use the term, it refers to 'the how' (or method) by which a distinct meaning of reality is inferred. The method is the scientific objective method .. hence its model is: 'Objective' reality .. Its a bottoms-up method and not a top down one .. the latter of which there, starts out making assumptions or syllogisms. Science starts with no such 'true' (or conditional) assumptions about reality .. it tests assumptions, or discards them when they aren't testable.

See above.

Maybe it would be easier to just ask why you think other minds even exist independently of yours and aren't merely a sort of hallucination of your mind?

Then whatever your answer or evidence is....I'll repeat this question until you admit you believe in an objective reality. Objective in the sense that it's independent of your mind or perception.

If you don't understand how this is going to go....simply answer the question above/below since you clearly seem to believe other minds exist. Why do you think other minds exist independently of yours and aren't merely some sort of hallucination you're having?

 

[BCP1928]

Your amusement notwithstanding, much of the necessary development in the methods of science that differentiate it from other endeavors have been to counter the bias toward the common experience, to question the interpretation of naive understanding and to dig for what is actually going on no matter how unfamiliar or non-intuitive it may seem.

An interesting turn of phrase "in the literature". It makes me think that this problem is not even standard fare in the texts of undergraduate courses in philosophy. I can't say so with any certitude as I have never taken such a course. Have you? I'm not sure why you would expect familiarity of such in the science section of an online forum.

This "willful blindness" claim has grown tiresome and insulting.

You've made no demonstration of understanding of how science works operationally. I see no reason to take your opinions on the topic as having any value.

The mind/ body problem has interested philosophers for millennia and often come up in philosophy classes. As a problem for philosophers and scientists it still baffles wiser heads than ours. The question is, why did fervent bring it up here and take the position on it he does if his interested is, as he says, in "growing the kingdom?"

 

[Fervent]

Your amusement notwithstanding, much of the necessary development in the methods of science that differentiate it from other endeavors have been to counter the bias toward the common experience, to question the interpretation of naive understanding and to dig for what is actually going on no matter how unfamiliar or non-intuitive it may seem.

So long as it conforms to a "physical" understanding. What you have described in questioning personal understanding is philosophy, not science.

An interesting turn of phrase "in the literature". It makes me think that this problem is not even standard fare in the texts of undergraduate courses in philosophy. I can't say so with any certitude as I have never taken such a course. Have you? I'm not sure why you would expect familiarity of such in the science section of an online forum.

Within theories of mind, it's a recognized problem.

This "willful blindness" claim has grown tiresome and insulting.

It's descriptive, and I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not you are insulted by it.

You've made no demonstration of understanding of how science works operationally. I see no reason to take your opinions on the topic as having any value.

I'm not concerned with your opinions, either. Though I do find it amusing that you pretend that science is always a clear cut issue, because the frontiers of science always require more than established methods.

 

[Fervent]

Pick a different word or find definition of facts that isn't related to truth.

Facts is appropriate in its ordinary usage, because we're speaking of informally collected brute understanding. We're speaking of things that are basic.

You can't tell me they aren't true one breath and call them facts the next. If they aren't true....they aren't factual.

True or false isn't an appropriate category for these, they're ground floor, pre-theoretica empirical statements. They're what true theories aim to explain.

Why switch the word then? It has no utility nor does it make anything clearer.

The procedure speaks for itselt. I didn't re-define anything, I simply separated one of the proposiitions into two propositions to remove an assumption about nature from the set of empirically supported propositions.

And threw one out. That' an alteration.

It's a logical test. If removing it didn't change anything, then it's not the problem term. Removing it dissolves the issue, which hints that it's the problem term.

If not, then you're saying natural=physical and you've solved absolutely nothing.

Nope, I'm saying that natural=natural and natural=physical is an unjustified and seemingly false assumption.

Is math up for interpretation in your mind?

On the frontiers it can be. Since which axioms we adopt can significantly alter things. Which is why we have Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry, among other contradictory mathematic structures.

Then stop calling them facts. If they aren't true...no problem of contradiction exists.

Its what they are. Brute empirical facts.

This is you admitting that natural and physical aren't the same.

I never claimed they were, in fact my analysis depends on them not being the same. But its from analysis, not by playing at definitions

You by extension have admitted to a logical fallacy if you believe this is a logical problem.

What logical fallacy? You claim as much, but you haven't provided one. So what fallacy did I commit?

I think the point is a chance for you to learn about philosophy.

What do I need to learn?

I've given you ample time to explain.

You've spoken out of both sides of your mouth and made accusations that you haven't backed up.

Personal anecdotes....sure. I don't consider that evidence in this sort of discussion. They certainly don't require my agreement in any way.

We're not talking anecdotes, we're speaking of what seems to be a universal experience among human beings. Just because it's not formally collected doesn't stop it from being relevant data.

Agreed.




Already forgiven.



Sure but I'm the swine in that analogy lol...it's not the first time. Not a problem.

Yeah, as I said I understand why you would be insulted but it wasn't meant to convey an insult. Simply that there are good reasons for me to withhold some information within our discussion.

Dogma....trust in other's claims. We all do it, I simply pick different people for different reasons under different circumstances.

Nope, my belief comes from digging down until nothing remained but the truth of my experiences. My reasons for faith are personal, not purely because others have told me. Though I do wonder, how do you know of science except by what others you have deemed "experts" have claimed? Do you understand every specialized field, or do you believe other's claims because of their credentials? I see you admit you pick different people, but the difference is your beliefs depend on those other people. Mine depend on God, because every human being is a liar.

I didn't claim they were. I only listed possible ones.

Dd I misread what you wrote and I responded to in that quote?

Never seen that part of Occam's razor. An ad hoc solution is tailored to the problem so it seems Occam would likely approve.

Occam's razor is literally about not inventing ad hoc solutions and taking the solution that requires inventing as few as possible. Which is why it is properly formulated "Do not multiply entitied unnecessarily." Ad hoc solutions are options of desperation when no other solution is pallatable, and Occam requires us to take the explanation that has the fewest of them.

I'm not big into physicalist philosophy.

From our conversation, it seems you have a physicalist understandng of "objective reality" even if you don't subscribe to philosophical artifices.

Ok.





It isn't.

Then why have so many opted to provide robust solutions?

Who are you trying to convince then?

I'm engaged in conversation. The goal isn't to convince anyone, though perhaps to leave some without excuse when they stand before the ivory throne.

I'm not sure anyone thinks this is a problem apart from yourself.

The amount of ink spilled trying to answer it speaks otherwise.

I'm just suggesting that you consider your own motives. I'm not going to argue them.

My motives aren't really relevant.

Ok...you're starting to convince me of the same lol.

It's not something I am alone in. Knowledge without some kind of unjustified assumption appears beyond the grasp of human beings, I simply prefer not to play pretend with it and make the admission that faith is a necessity.

Can you think of any truths you find unpleasant or emotionally uncomfortable?

Truths? I know not of multple truths, only one. There are things that make me uncomfortable from that truth, but I'm not sure what the actual case is involving them.

I believe that total war is the only viable war theory and therefore justifies the utter annihilation of a people under certain circumstances.

That's an interesting viewpoint, and perhaps you are right. Though I wouldn't trust any human being to make such a call.

Restrained war is temporary war and as such, will inevitably end after it gets too costly or unpopular. As such, a people at war must break the will of their enemy to fight...and without the threat of total loss of everything, few people will stop fighting.

This is an uncomfortable truth for me and I don't typically share it...but there you go.

I appreciate your sharing, and it seems fair to me. Though where such lines are to be drawn seems questionable.

Your turn. Tell me something true that's ugly or unpleasant or emotionally unsatisfying.

the conquest narratives in the OT, God's use of plagues and pestilence as a means of correcting His people. There is one truth that I find most unpleasant, but I am not sure if it is wise to share. I might be inclined to share in a PM, but I need to pray about it first.

Great...as propositions we disagree with, no problem exists.

I suppose if you want to pretend that you're an automata then no problem exists...but then it would seem science is rather a silly endeavor.

No...they aren't. They are quite clearly propositional claims about reality. If the physical and mental are entirely separate....I don't see how you or I or anyone else would know this or "experience" it.

They're propositional statements that are based on experiences themselves, they're understandings that precede theories and denying them based on a theory is putting the cart before the horse.

I'd argue that your ability to perceive anything is inherently because mental processes are tied to physical ones.

And your argument is based on imposing a theoretical understanding onto basic experiences from an unjustified assumption. If you want to make that claim, you need to justify the assumption it follows from.

And you fixed that error by changing it to something else...

The change isn't really a change, because the two terms combined state what the original term stated. I used the law of identity and questions of synthetic relationships to separate out a synthetic proposition and state the principle of closure as an analytic statement. If I did violence, you have to specify what specific violence I did not just claim that I did. So what's the error?

Which breaks the law of identity. If you don't believe these are true or factual than quite literally nobody here does.

No, it depends on the law of identity. I used the statement nature=nature to separate closure from physical closure by relating the two terms through the law of identity. There's no violation, in fact the law of identity is what gives the analysis its teeth.

See how that isn't a problem?

All I see is confusion on your part.

Propositions aren't facts. We can ignore the contradiction because we have evidence that these propositions aren't true.

You said yourself these propositions are empirical propositions. We're speaking ground floor, and denying the reliiabiility of these sorts of experiences requires us to apply the same scrutiny to everything derived from experience if we maintain consistency. So how do we trust any so-called evidence if it all requires experience and we can't trust our basic experiences to provide us with reliable information?

 

[Fervent]

The mind/ body problem has interested philosophers for millennia and often come up in philosophy classes. As a problem for philosophers and scientists it still baffles wiser heads than ours. The question is, why did fervent bring it up here and take the position on it he does if his interested is, as he says, in "growing the kingdom?"

The answer to that is pretty simple. My intention was to bring out the uncompromosing philosophical assumptions that are so often embedded into science. The mind-body problem highlights the truth about claims about going where evidence leads and being amenable to falsification among a certain vocal group. It's about exposing lies to the light of day, as the objections depend on unjustified assumptions and ad hoc "solutions" to deny that there is any problem at all. So long as everyone agrees to pretend it's not a problem, then it's not a problem even if there is no sufficient answer to it. At least that's what I have surmised from the responses of those who object to my raising the problem.

 

[SelfSim]

Mind Dependent Reality huh......

I'll have to read up on that. It sounds like that self help guru stuff that went around awhile back....I think it was "The Secret" where the central claim was that thinking about stuff made it happen or manifest. Big hit for a year then ultimately in the trash.
..
Seems like this possibility of something makes reality independent of the mind in certain ways.

Go on...

As linked to, and explicitly already pointed out to you, many post ago in this thread, here is the MDR Hypothesis I'm referring to.
It is not the gobbledygook you've dreamed up there. It is an objectively testable, scientifcally conceived hypothesis.
If you were a scientific thinker you would recongise its scientific merit.

If reality is dependent upon the mind....you can only have subjective evidence and only for yourself.

Again, (for the third time), read the above link. It explicitly says:

'Finally, it is worth noting what the MDR perspective is not saying:

1) no claim is made that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is what reality actually is". Instead, the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions'.

That is a completely different approach from your inquiry approach of: 'If .. you can only have', which sets out by comparing what follows, with an assumed, existing truth. Science does not depend on assumptions of untestable existing truths. This is precisely why I keep saying the MDR hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis .. because it seeks test evidence via the scientific method and does not depend on assumed truths. Do you see the difference? If not, then you don't understand science at its most basic level.

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

That's what I mean by objective reality. That's what I see a belief in whenever you mention objective evidence.

If there's some other definition you're using....please share it.

Caution is needed with dictionary definitions. See my response to @Fervent some posts back in this thread, here.

Although a dictionary definition is always a useful starting point, unfortunately definitions always have to be very vague and very inclusive of many different things. That's how they are designed, because they are not equipped with context, whereas meaning is always contextual. (Why aren't people taught this? The nonsense they believe about definitions knows no bounds.) So instead of looking up definitions, I recommend actually doing the work of deciding what you mean when you use a word, and watch for internal inconsistencies-- they abound. Also watch for circularity.

Examples include, when you look for definitions of "reality", you find things like "reality is everything that exists", and then you look up "exist" and get "have objective reality" and so forth. The fact is, definitions can never tell you what things are, and they can also never tell you what you mean when you use a word. They only tell you what many people tend to mean in various situations, but there is a real danger of creating a kind of illusion of understanding when real understanding requires a whole lot more work than looking up a definition.

What's more, it should be very obvious the internal inconsistency of saying (from your above quoted defintion): 'sensible experience independent of individual thought' .. Who is having sensible experiences there(?) and how is that somehow independent of that person's individual thought? I have to wonder if people even look at what they are saying, sometimes. But yes, the common poor definitions we find involving 'objectivity' are ripe with such clear inconsistencies (see my post#170 link mentioned above), there is a complete lack of introspection on the topic. I'd like to sit down with whoever thought those were good definitions and have the conversation (in post #168):

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?)

What's the "we" stuff?...if you think others exist apart from your subjective experience of them....see above.

There is clear evidence for instances of other minds functioning independently from my own. They convey meanings using in-common language, which I understand, (ie: it passes semantic testing generating an abundance of postive results). None of this is evidence of mind independence .. in fact its evidence of two minds exchanging meanings via language using those minds .. (aka: more test results in the positive, wrt the MDR hypothesis).

You've already made the concept overly complicated.

How about a practical example of a pointer?

I make no excuses for complexity .. and why should I(?)
You clearly did not understand my explanation of 'pointer'. The example I gave is sufficient for the intent of the MDR hypothesis testing. Ie: I am using 'pointers' to denote the observation of consistencies and regularities within our perceptional model we call 'nature'. That's your example, right there .. (sorry if you can't conceptualise that).

What consistencies?

Are you serious?
Eg: do you not notice what goes up, normally comes down, with regularity and consistency?
We could not formulate physics laws and fundamental physical constants in the absence of regularities and consistencies .. but we have done exactly that.

I would say the dictionary term holds more utility than yours. After all....I can never know your method nor can you ever know mine, nor can we agree or disagree even if for some strange reason you believe I exist.

You could try listening to what I'm saying and testing it out for yourself following the scientific method(?)
You'd have to leave the Realist baggage behind in order to gain an appreciation however.

t some stage we could talk about introducing an operationally testable definition of 'Knowing' too(?)

If I was concerned with convincing you at one point...I promise that concern is gone.

I'm also have little interest in convincing you.
Beyond yourself; what I'm getting from conversations on this topic, is that very few have managed to distinguish a scientifically formulated testable hypothesis from their own philosophical baggage. (@Fervent would probably call it metaphysical baggage?)

I daresay, if you've tried to steer multiple threads this direction....it's probably been a difficult idea to sell anyone on....huh?

I'm not trying to 'sell' anything .. I'm usually clarifying and explaining the reasoning behind what I say, in the face of a bunch of highly inquisitive reasoning minds in this forum.
There is significant intellectual effort required to appreciate the significance of model (mind) dependent reality. I have set a low expectation based on my experiences here.

.. I'll be waiting on your next post.

.. and you now have it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So long as it conforms to a "physical" understanding. What you have described in questioning personal understanding is philosophy, not science.

Science studies the what is physical/natural (whichever definition, I don't care), not greater meaning or philosophy. There is no deeper meaning in the restriction of science to the physical.

The point I was making about common sense is fundamental to the operation of science. We speak of "peer review" and "reproduceability", but the first obligation every scientist has is to question their own ideas and to vigorously test them to try best to demonstrate they are false before presenting them to the wider community for their testing and comment. These are the principles we scientists must practice to ensure that claimed results are not the product of "intuition" either of of the "common" sort or the intuition that arises from ones knowledge of an area of study.

Within theories of mind, it's a recognized problem.

As I am neither a psychologist or neuroscientist, I do not need a theory of mind. I have no use for one.

It's descriptive, and I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not you are insulted by it.

It is a false description that you insist on repeating. I take umbrage at it. As I have said now at least a dozen times -- I don't know what difference you take between "physical" and "natural" and you have refused to explain or give examples. One other poster provided textbook philosophical definitions, and while they were reasonable definitions as best I could tell, that only left the question even more uncertain. (I was really hoping for an example of something that was physical but not natural or vice versa.)

I'm not concerned with your opinions, either. Though I do find it amusing that you pretend that science is always a clear cut issue, because the frontiers of science always require more than established methods.

I think you might misunderstand here, so I'll state it again for clarity: the opinion of yours I am thoroughly disinterested in is your opinion on how science should operate. I am only interested in the opinions of my fellow professionals.

 

[BCP1928]

The answer to that is pretty simple. My intention was to bring out the uncompromosing philosophical assumptions that are so often embedded into science. The mind-body problem highlights the truth about claims about going where evidence leads and being amenable to falsification among a certain vocal group. It's about exposing lies to the light of day, as the objections depend on unjustified assumptions and ad hoc "solutions" to deny that there is any problem at all. So long as everyone agrees to pretend it's not a problem, then it's not a problem even if there is no sufficient answer to it. At least that's what I have surmised from the responses of those who object to my raising the problem.

Nobody objects to you raising the problem, though given the history of it we are unlikely to arrive at a solution in a chatroom. But I have the impression that you have more or less taken a dualist position and are using it to prove something or other about atheists. What that that might be is obscure to me because there is no real alignment between dualism/monism and theism/atheism, Or maybe I am missing your point altogether.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In response to the question "Is math up for interpretation in your mind?" you replied:

On the frontiers it can be. Since which axioms we adopt can significantly alter things. Which is why we have Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry, among other contradictory mathematic structures.

non-Euclidean geometry isn't a matter of interpretation, nor is it contradictory.

non-Euclidean geometry is just geometry that doesn't use Euclid's principles, like "parallel lines don't touch and stay equidistant from each other".

Even geometry within a spherical surface is non-Euclidean as a 2D geometry. The Riemann geometry used in general relativity is from the mid/late-19th century and is not open to "interpretations" or is it contradictory. (It is often non-intuitive which can cause issues if you rely on "common sense" and the like.)

 

[Fervent]

Science studies the what is physical/natural (whichever definition, I don't care), not greater meaning or philosophy. There is no deeper meaning in the restriction of science to the physical.

You may not care, but they are two different things. Simply because you don't want to recognize a distinction doesn't mean there isn't one, and if you only consider conforming evidence then all you are engaging in is confirmation bias.

The point I was making about common sense is fundamental to the operation of science. We speak of "peer review" and "reproduceability", but the first obligation every scientist has is to question their own ideas and to vigorously test them to try best to demonstrate they are false before presenting them to the wider community for their testing and comment. These are the principles we scientists must practice to ensure that claimed results are not the product of "intuition" either of of the "common" sort or the intuition that arises from ones knowledge of an area of study.

Formalized understandng is not the only approach to knowledge, and the problem I am presentng is an invitation to question your understanding at a foundational level. Willful denial of the problem and defining it away through ad hoc procedures is the exact opposite of questioning one's own assumptions.

As I am neither a psychologist or neuroscientist, I do not need a theory of mind. I have no use for one.

This sounds like a cop out, why are you inserting yourself into a discussion of such things if all you have to say is you have no personal use for such a thing?

It is a false description that you insist on repeating. I take umbrage at it. As I have said now at least a dozen times -- I don't know what difference you take between "physical" and "natural" and you have refused to explain or give examples. One other poster provided textbook philosophical definitions, and while they were reasonable definitions as best I could tell, that only left the question even more uncertain. (I was really hoping for an example of something that was physical but not natural or vice versa.)

It's not a "false description" it's a phenomenal description. The only reason you seem to believe its false is because you refuse to question your base assumptions about physicality that you deny having. Ad hoc solutions do not make for true solutions.

I think you might misunderstand here, so I'll state it again for clarity: the opinion of yours I am thoroughly disinterested in is your opinion on how science should operate. I am only interested in the opinions of my fellow professionals.

My opinion isn't really relevant to the logical procedures. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too in holding to a metaphysical position that allows you to deny that this problem is a genuine problem for theories of mind, The procedures I've employed aren't merely opinions, the only opinion that seems to be getting in the way is yours which you refuse to question. You impose a theory onto the data and dismiss basic experience as being relevant or requiring an explanation of some sort that isn't just pretending that there is no problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This sounds like a cop out, why are you inserting yourself into a discussion of such things if all you have to say is you have no personal use for such a thing?

What about your early posts suggestted it had anything to do with a "theory of mind"?

 

[Fervent]

Nobody objects to you raising the problem, though given the history of it we are unlikely to arrive at a solution in a chatroom. But I have the impression that you have more or less taken a dualist position and are using it to prove something or other about atheists. What that that might be is obscure to me because there is no real alignment between dualism/monism and theism/atheism, Or maybe I am missing your point altogether.

There are at least two people who have been objecting to me raising the problem and are trying to deny that there is a problem at all. My position isn't dualism, it's best described as neutral monism but such speculations are really only relevant for my personal understanding. The point of raisng this problem is, if peope read through the objections and my responses neutrally, the "objections" are nothing more than attempts to deny that there is any such problem and employing ad hoc theoretical definitions as a means of explaining it away. In short, those who are objecting seem to be letting their metaphysics drive their approach to science while denying that they have any such metaphysical understanding.