Causal exclusion problem

[Hans Blaster]

The only reason you seem to believe its false is because you refuse to question your base assumptions about physicality that you deny having.

Do you even read my statements before accusing me of "not understanding" because I am making assumptions I won't admit. This is growing rather tiring. How can I even reject your understanding/claim about the difference between "physical "and "natural" if you refuse to define them or give a link to a reference? Just tell us what you think the difference is between the two and then we can talk about it. I might agree. I might disagree. I might choose one over the other for my "preferred understanding of reality", (I might even understand your solution in the OP), but I can do none of those things if you keep playing this coy game of not defining your terms.

 

[Fervent]

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

I haven't denied that in any way, shape, or form. What sounds like a cop out is your denial of interest. The evidence that this is a real problem, and not just something I have imagined, is that it has an extensive body of theoretical replies with no clear stand out because all of them involve ad hoc adjustments or end up being self-refuting if they are subjected to epistemic scrutiny. I haven't articulated my understanding, but that's not to say I don't have one. As I said to another poster, the denials you make are like a little kid with cookie crumbs all over his face saying "What cookie? I don't see a cookie."

 

[Fervent]

Do you even read my statements before accusing me of "not understanding" because I am making assumptions I won't admit. This is growing rather tiring. How can I even reject your understanding/claim about the difference between "physical "and "natural" if you refuse to define them or give a link to a reference? Just tell us what you think the difference is between the two and then we can talk about it. I might agree. I might disagree. I might choose one over the other for my "preferred understanding of reality", (I might even understand your solution in the OP), but I can do none of those things if you keep playing this coy game of not defining your terms.

You could identify a procedural error I have made in my analysis, instead of just denying that there is any problem at all. Definitions don't matter in this way, because the terms used are defined ostensively and not semantically. If you want to raise an objection, then in order to raise such an objection it has to be pointing out some error in the procedures I have employed. This isn't a debate over metaphysical speculation, it's an analytic procedure. I've explained multiple times why your objections are irrelevant to the question at hand, and all that repeating them shows is that you don't understand what I have done. And it's clear the reason you don't understand is because you are so committed to a metaphysical belief that you can't distinguish your belief from genuine fact.

 

[SelfSim]

Science studies the what is physical/natural ..

FWiW: I recognise that statement coming from yourself (in particular) is a statement supported by heaps of testing/results and not just a statement coming from a purely philosophical stance you hold(?)
If so, that's, (somehwat unfortunately), fundamentally different from how philosophers seem to be driven to interpret it .. (?)

There is no deeper meaning in the restriction of science to the physical.

I think if something ever came to the attention of humans which challenged what science means by 'the physical/natural', scientists would somehow, more than likely, devise a way to investigate it(?) That would, in no way, negate the the abundance of observational evidence already behind the statement: 'Science studies the what is physical/natural ..' .. IMHO(?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I haven't denied that in any way, shape, or form.

I didn't say you were denying anything about your thread being about "theory of mind".

What sounds like a cop out is your denial of interest.

No, I'm not interest in "theory of mind". I just didn't realize that's what this was about until to late. At first I thought it was about some notion like physical reality is a product of the more fundamental mental reality. (I've see such claims before on this site, and I am not impressed.)

The evidence that this is a real problem, and not just something I have imagined, is that it has an extensive body of theoretical replies with no clear stand out because all of them involve ad hoc adjustments or end up being self-refuting if they are subjected to epistemic scrutiny.

I didn't say it wasn't a real problem in philosophy or that you imagine it up. I just think it belongs on the philosophy section and not the physical science section. (i.e., it is missorted)

I haven't articulated my understanding, but that's not to say I don't have one.

So you have a solution and opinions on the nature of the problem, but you won't state your position, just offer this solution no actual philosopher thought to come up with? Simple solutions to well known (in the right community) problems are probably not correct, particularly when "published" on obscure venues where that knowledgeable people don't read or frequent.

As I said to another poster, the denials you make are like a little kid with cookie crumbs all over his face saying "What cookie? I don't see a cookie."

You may have a mind-body problem and certainly care about it, but I don't. I was drawn into this thread before I realized what it was about and there are now issues opened that either aren't about it, or are not affected by my lack of interest in the "mind-body problem". I'd still like to know what you think the difference between "physical" and "natural" is. It might be an interesting conversation. (Or it might not, I can't read minds or foresee the future.)

(And to head off a possible counter, I don't care about mind-body itself, because it has no impact on me or my life. The relationship between my perceived mind and my meat-bag does not impact my work, or my daily life, or how I interact with others [at least those that don't bring up 'mind-body' problems]. It is not something I personally to resolve to get on with life, ergo, I can feel free to not care about it.)

 

[SelfSim]

I haven't denied that in any way, shape, or form. What sounds like a cop out is your denial of interest. The evidence that this is a real problem, and not just something I have imagined, is that it has an extensive body of theoretical replies with no clear stand out because all of them involve ad hoc adjustments or end up being self-refuting if they are subjected to epistemic scrutiny.

Look, science isn't investigating from the perspective of satisfying 'epistemic scrutiny'. Its more like 'epistemic scruntinsts' are tracking science's findings (eg: quantum physics testing/results).
Eg: why should science suppress the results described by (the very loose colloquial term) of 'quantum weirdness' to satisfy 'epistemic scrutinists'?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.


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.

I do understand it better than you're previous explanation.

It's basically holding all the traditional assumptions underlying the scientific method as it was previously, but not so tightly.

I think you might be giving too much credence to those original underlying assumptions....they are necessary starting points for an explanation of what is or what is not. That does not make them indispensable should any new evidence require it, nor does it make them irreplaceable if a better assumed starting point is conceived.

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

Look...if your definition of objective...

1. Adds utility....aka increases it's usefulness in describing something as a word.

2. Doesn't add vague terms which themselves need clarity to understand the definition.

Then you won't have any problem adopting a new definition. If you're having trouble, I'd suggest you consider the 2 reasons above...I've seen a lot of new definitions failing to catch on and I considered why for some time.

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.

If you see a problem with the current definition....let's hear it.

That's how they are designed, because they are not equipped with context, whereas meaning is always contextual.

Me.

That's a word without context....do you not understand it's meaning?

(Why aren't people taught this? The nonsense they believe about definitions knows no bounds.)

Hatred of definitions and desire to alter them typically indicates postmodernist sophistry. Is that where this comes from? Are you a flim-flam man?

I considered the possibility that you were a scientist who simply never learned where the scientific method comes from but not now.

So instead of looking up definitions, I recommend actually doing the work of deciding what you mean when you use a word,

The definition I gave is the one I mean. If you have any difficulty understanding it...just point it out. I don't think you do.

What's more, it should be very obvious the internal inconsistency of saying

Your definition has no consistency at all. It refers to a method without any explanation of what the method does or it's uses. It's deliberately vague.

It can't be the scientific method...because that begins with observation. What are you possibly observing if you aren't assuming anything exists outside of your mind? You can only conclude it's something imaginary.

There is clear evidence for instances of other minds functioning independently from my own.

How do you know that evidence isn't merely a hallucination of your mind?

 

[Fervent]

Look, science isn't investigating from the perspective of satisfying 'epistemic scrutiny'. Its more like 'epistemic scruntists' are tracking science's findings (eg: quantum physics testing/results).
Eg: why should science suppress the results described by (the very loose colloquial term) of 'quantum weirdness' to satisfy 'epistemic scrutinists'?

This is a rather oddball comment, I'm not sure what it is meant to be responding to since it's discussing things that aren't relevant.

 

[Fervent]

I didn't say you were denying anything about your thread being about "theory of mind".

It's about a field of investigation that has deeper philosophical considerations.

No, I'm not interest in "theory of mind". I just didn't realize that's what this was about until to late. At first I thought it was about some notion like physical reality is a product of the more fundamental mental reality. (I've see such claims before on this site, and I am not impressed.)

Fair enough, though in a sense I am under the impression that there is something deeper going on from the incongruity that the problem highlights. The issue is anthropological, in that it seems that both our bodies and our minds are intertwined in some fashion but neither neatly reduces to the other. As far as metaphysical questions go, my interes goes no further than anthropic questions and I am content to leave the "deeper" truths to the mysterious. I don't pretend to know what natural means, and I'm comfortable with people modeling it as physical so long as we keep in mind that it is a physical model we are building and not simple truth.

I didn't say it wasn't a real problem in philosophy or that you imagine it up. I just think it belongs on the philosophy section and not the physical science section. (i.e., it is missorted)

It's a question of scientific interest that so far seems to require developing new scientific tools through philosophy. If the philosophy section wasn't closed, I probably would have posted it there. But because it has anthropic value it seems to me that it fits with life sciences reasonably well.

So you have a solution and opinions on the nature of the problem, but you won't state your position, just offer this solution no actual philosopher thought to come up with? Simple solutions to well known (in the right community) problems are probably not correct, particularly when "published" on obscure venues where that knowledgeable people don't read or frequent.

I have no solution, only dissolution. This analysis properly raises more questions than providing any answers. I have personal theories, but they are drawn from ecclectic sources that don't always fit neatly with science so I prefer to keep my discussion of them to a minimum.

You may have a mind-body problem and certainly care about it, but I don't. I was drawn into this thread before I realized what it was about and there are now issues opened that either aren't about it, or are not affected by my lack of interest in the "mind-body problem". I'd still like to know what you think the difference between "physical" and "natural" is. It might be an interesting conversation. (Or it might not, I can't read minds or foresee the future.)

I think the natural is a very weird, fundamentally incomprehensible mystery that we can continue to explore through modeling. Physical is the name of a conceptual model that is often used to explore that incomprehensible mystery in the physical sciences. As far as where this thread fits into the forum it is more properly part of the life sciences, as it is an important question for our understanding of anthropology.

(And to head off a possible counter, I don't care about mind-body itself, because it has no impact on me or my life. The relationship between my perceived mind and my meat-bag does not impact my work, or my daily life, or how I interact with others [at least those that don't bring up 'mind-body' problems]. It is not something I personally to resolve to get on with life, ergo, I can feel free to not care about it.)

So long as you don't give it deeper consideration, I suppose it wouldn't. You certainly are free not to care about it, but it seems to me that you have a rudimentary theory in saying you have a "perceived mind" and a "meat-bag". Such conceptions seem to diminish the value of human beings in crucial ways, essentially it comes across to me as de-humanizing yourself.

 

[SelfSim]

It's basically holding all the traditional assumptions underlying the scientific method as it was previously, but not so tightly.

More like it ignores any/all untestable 'traditional assumptions' and labels them as beliefs.

I think you might be giving too much credence to those original underlying assumptions....they are necessary starting points for an explanation of what is or what is not. That does not make them indispensable should any new evidence require it, nor does it make them irreplaceable if a better assumed starting point is conceived.

I'll stick with what I said.

Look...if your definition of objective...

1. Adds utility....aka increases it's usefulness in describing something as a word.

2. Doesn't add vague terms which themselves need clarity to understand the definition.

Then you won't have any problem adopting a new definition. If you're having trouble, I'd suggest you consider the 2 reasons above...I've seen a lot of new definitions failing to catch on and I considered why for some time.

A meaningful definition of Objectivity is not a straightforward matter. Its one of the more difficult concepts to define.
It relies heavily on seeing that it requires other active and healthy, like-thinking minds.

If you see a problem with the current definition....let's hear it.

Already answered:

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.

Perceiving, conceptualising, then describing those experiences, are all entirely dependent on individual thought.
I am yet to see someone entirely disconnect themselves from thought during that process.

Me.
That's a word without context....do you not understand it's meaning?

'Me' requires a sense of self-awareness in order to get its meaning .. There's your context .. right there!

As an aside: Descartes' "cogito ergo sum", (I think, therefore I am), should have been: I think, therefore I think that I am).

Your definition has no consistency at all. It refers to a method without any explanation of what the method does or it's uses. It's deliberately vague.

It works amongst scientifically thinking minds.

It can't be the scientific method...because that begins with observation. What are you possibly observing if you aren't assuming anything exists outside of your mind? You can only conclude it's something imaginary.

The scientific method extends to speculation, followed by forming an hypothesis ..Aka: mind dependent stuff right there.
Observation is a perceptional model, or can be an objective model, based on human senses.
We can establish a model and call it 'what exists independently from our minds', but that's just a short hand way of optimising expediency. Testing such a model requires an active healthy human mind and is therefore in no way, independent of one.

How do you know that evidence isn't merely a hallucination of your mind?

Because my mind is successfully making sense of my perceptions, when formed on the basis of that evidence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

More like it ignores any/all untestable 'traditional assumptions' and labels them as beliefs.

You can call it a belief...you're not ignoring it though.

I'll stick with what I said.

Ok.

It relies heavily on

It relies heavily on a belief.

You don't get to just skip to the part where "other minds" independent of your own exist without a reality that's independent of your mind.

'Me' requires

Very little. It's a subject reference.

The scientific method extends to speculation, followed by forming an hypothesis ..Aka: mind dependent stuff right there.

Speculation about what?

Observation is a perceptional model

And it's entirely necessary for the scientific method.

We can establish a model

You can't.

Because my mind is successfully making sense of my perceptions, when formed on the basis of that evidence.

You're assuming that no hallucination could ever be so convincing. If you're unaware of the evidence for that....sorry...but you're definitely wrong lol. Regardless, how would you know if you are not merely hallucinating that evidence?

Your answer makes it seem like you hold an unjustified belief in your own perception....which has nothing to do with science....or the scientific method. It's just narcissistic self indulgence.

Edit- I noticed that you ignored the question of whether or not you are a postmodernist, etc.

I'm not going to shame you and call you some commie pinko or something...I'm simply curious where this is coming from. Postmodernists' greatest achievement is understanding that definitions are created....something I've known since about 10. Apparently though, they don't understand what definitions are for....which is why they rarely make any stick.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Facts is appropriate in its ordinary usage

No...it's not. Words have meaning. I have no idea what you imagine a fact is if it's not tied to truth.

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

Ok...then you broke the law of identity.

Its what they are. Brute empirical facts.

I don't know what "facts" means to you.....so every time you explain it, its nonsense.

Can you explain what a fact is in your mind?

We're not talking anecdotes

I think we are...we certainly aren't speaking about facts.

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

When I would need an answer from a physicist....I might ask @Hans Blaster. I've got reason to believe his claim of expertise in the field...and I do understand how that field acquires truth.

Occam's razor is literally about not inventing ad hoc solutions

Write out Occam's Razor then...we'll see.

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

I don't think you understand my position at all.

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.

Dogma. You trust the words of a 2000 year old Jewish sect. I'm fine with that but it is dogma.

My motives aren't really relevant.

I think you just gave them away above....this certainly wasn't about honest discussion.

I know not of multple truths, only one.

Well I guess we can dismiss your "solution" as false then.

I suppose if you want to pretend that you're an automata then no problem exists.

I'm pretty sure I gave room for free will in one of my solutions. It's irrelevant imo though.

The change isn't really a change, because the two terms combined state what the original term stated.

If you didn't change anything then the 4 propositions stand without your word swapping.

All I see is confusion on your part.

Is it?

When you played word swap with natural and physical...did you alter the meaning of any propositions?

If you did...you broke the law of identity.

If you didn't....then I'll simply word swap back to this the word "physical" and restate the propositions. You can tell me if these mean the same as your "solution" since you didn't alter anything lol. Sound fair?

You said yourself these propositions are empirical propositions. We're speaking ground floor,

It is ground floor...but they're only propositions.

 

[Fervent]

No...it's not. Words have meaning. I have no idea what you imagine a fact is if it's not tied to truth.

Facts and truth are related, but facts are basic in nature. Truth must proceed from factual statements, but factual statements aare more like raw data than evidence.

Ok...then you broke the law of identity.

I did no such thing, I relied on the law of identity to separate causal closure into two distinct proposiitions instead of just one. Because nature=nature I am able to rely on that identity to remove a synthetic proposition without doing violence to the terms involved.

I don't know what "facts" means to you.....so every time you explain it, its nonsense.

Base data, pre-theoretical empirical observations.

Can you explain what a fact is in your mind?

Datum. The experiences themselves at face value.

I think we are...we certainly aren't speaking about facts.

The lines seem to muddy based on bottom level assumptions. The experiences themselves are data, and operate as facts.

When I would need an answer from a physicist....I might ask @Hans Blaster. I've got reason to believe his claim of expertise in the field...and I do understand how that field acquires truth.

Sure, but how does one become an expert on reality itself, and how do you determine that someone telling you something you don't understand is being honest with you or truly understands themselves?

Write out Occam's Razor then...we'll see.

I've written out Occam's Razor. Do not multiply entities needlessly.

I don't think you understand my position at all.

Do you not take as your foundation the existence of an external, "objective" reality?

Dogma. You trust the words of a 2000 year old Jewish sect. I'm fine with that but it is dogma.

Not alone, my starting point is Christ and the resurrection. The Bible is more a conduit than an absolute authority for me, I draw from an ecclectic stream of nformation(including the natural sciences)...my faith is very pragmatic. And a lot of that is because I am committed to knowing nothing but Christ and HIm crucified.

I think you just gave them away above....this certainly wasn't about honest discussion.

"Honest" discussion? It's a topic of some interest to me, but there is no leaving my faith by the wayside in any conversation.

Well I guess we can dismiss your "solution" as false then.

Seems you would need to provide a response that doesn't amount to denying it based on some prior assumption.

I'm pretty sure I gave room for free will in one of my solutions. It's irrelevant imo though.

It's somewhat relevant, but I don't believe a physical solution has room for free will. But that's too far in the weeds for me to worry about here.

If you didn't change anything then the 4 propositions stand without your word swapping.

I didn't deny changing anything, I removed a metaphysical assumption. But my method of doing so wasn't by fiat or arbitrarily re-defining things in an ad hoc manner. I relied upon the law of identity to re-state one of the 4 propositions into two separate propositions so I could remove a term from the set. It's a simple form of semantic analysis that is definition neutral. So long as nature=nature and physical=physical it's legitimate to do so.

Is it?

When you played word swap with natural and physical...did you alter the meaning of any propositions?

If you did...you broke the law of identity.

Nope, not even close. I relied on the law of identity to separate the terms, there's no violation of the law of identity. I'm starting to wonder if you even know what the law of identity even is.

If you didn't....then I'll simply word swap back to this the word "physical" and restate the propositions. You can tell me if these mean the same as your "solution" since you didn't alter anything lol. Sound fair?

You're showing your lack of comprehension. I used the law of identity with the understanding that nature=nature so that I could state physical closure as two statements. Closure on the natural+(natural=physical)=closure on the physical. If natural=natural then I can treat the terms separately without doing violence to the closure principle. This is basic semantic analysis.

It is ground floor...but they're only propositions.

As ground floor, they are basic data or facts that need to be explained by a theory and not statements that are true or false. They're putting into words what people commonly experience, and aren't "true or false" statements any more than measuring the diameter of a tree stump is a true or false proposition. It's a different category entirely.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Einstein didn't predict black holes

Not what I was thinking of...

https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/einsteins-key-prediction-has-been-observed-for-the-first-time-1513302812

Sorry, I think I remembered the article incorrectly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

but factual statements aare more like raw data than evidence.

Ty for clearing that up by calling facts "raw data".

Can raw data that is false be a fact?

Datum. The experiences themselves at face value.

What part of proposition #1 or #3 look like "experiences" to you?

The experiences themselves are data,

Ok....well I'll see if you can regard facts as false before I tell you how you are wrong.

Sure, but how does one become an expert on reality itself

I don't know and I've certainly never met any such experts.

I've written out Occam's Razor. Do not multiply entities needlessly.

That's not quite it.

Do you not take as your foundation the existence of an external, "objective" reality?

We've been over this.

"Honest" discussion? It's a topic of some interest to me, but there is no leaving my faith by the wayside in any conversation.

Ok.

Seems you would need to provide a response that doesn't amount to denying it based on some prior assumption.

You said you only knew one truth. No offense, but the mind-body problem isn't in the bible tmk.

It's somewhat relevant, but I don't believe a physical solution has room for free will.

Ok.

I didn't deny changing anything, I removed a metaphysical assumption.

Ok.

But my method of doing so wasn't by fiat or arbitrarily re-defining things in an ad hoc manner.

That's exactly what it was.

I relied upon the law of identity to re-state one of the 4 propositions into two separate propositions so I could remove a term from the set.

Removing a term changes the original statement.

Go back and read the law of identity.

It's a simple form of semantic analysis that is definition neutral.

Definition nuetral. Hilarious. Is that any different from Definition missing?

Closure on the natural+(natural=physical)=closure on the physical.

This can be restated as natural = physical. Let's not multiply entities needlessly.

I already asked if natural = physical and you said no.

Are you now saying it does?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think there is anything I need to respond to in the above sections, so I'll skip to the last two as I've finally gotten an answer of sorts on natural/physical. (I see why it was avoided earlier and why my questions about the difference might have been confusing. I was expecting something that might be portrayed in a Venn diagram. This certainly can't be.)

I think the natural is a very weird, fundamentally incomprehensible mystery that we can continue to explore through modeling. Physical is the name of a conceptual model that is often used to explore that incomprehensible mystery in the physical sciences.

I find these definitions odd and preplexing. If anything can be called "real" (and I think it can) it is the physical. It would not be a model in the physical sciences, rather physical science use models to describe the physical. I've heard of mistaking the map for the place or the model for the reality, but never the other way around.

In your description, the natural seems to be what exists, and physical the model of it. I'm not surprised you think changing from "model" (physical) to "actual" (natural) causes is meaningful, I don't think model causation is meaningful either. (Models *of* causation could at least be useful.) I have major doubts that any serious philosopher uses definitions like these. If they do, my dismissal of philosophy next time won't be exaggerated for emphasis, but fully genuine.

As far as incomprehensible mystery, I don't find it to be the case. There really aren't that many components to work with when it is broken down carefully into simpler parts. It makes the overlying bits far more comprehensible. If a mere meatbag like me can handle comprehending a good chunk of it, how incomprehensible can it really be?

As far as where this thread fits into the forum it is more properly part of the life sciences, as it is an important question for our understanding of anthropology.

Huh?

So long as you don't give it deeper consideration, I suppose it wouldn't. You certainly are free not to care about it, but it seems to me that you have a rudimentary theory in saying you have a "perceived mind" and a "meat-bag".

It is sufficient to operate within the world. The entity typing this message seems to be a self-aware intelligence contained with in an animated mass of flesh. It appears to have free will of some sort. It interacts with like entities each with in their own animated flesh.

I find it reasonable to think all of the other accounts on this board are actual people just like the ones I meet in the regular world as I can't imagine that a site with a single ad for a children's book would have the resources to use chatbot users.

Likewise I see no reason to think the "physical things" are anything other than I perceive them to be, that is they are real even if my own understanding of them may be flawed. If that is a rudimentary model of mind, so be it. I have not put any real thought into nor does it seem to need much more than that for my purposes. Like most people if you tried to convince me of anything outside "reality is real" I would SMH and walk away while trying to visibly inspect my eye sockets.

Such conceptions seem to diminish the value of human beings in crucial ways, essentially it comes across to me as de-humanizing yourself.

I don't se any diminshment or dehumanization of anyone including myself. I am not going to pretend I (or we) are anything we are not. We are self-aware mammals that understand that at some point our flesh will fail and we will cease to be self-aware (conscious). I attach no deeper meaning to these facts as I see no reason to think any should be found in them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not what I was thinking of...

https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/einsteins-key-prediction-has-been-observed-for-the-first-time-1513302812

Sorry, I think I remembered the article incorrectly.

ahh. when I opened the science abstract (I let my subscription lapse years ago) I was a little confused as microlensing has been around and regularly measured for decades, but that is photometric microlensing (tracking the brightness as a function of time to look for the brightening events to search for hidden foreground objects), but this was astrometric microlensing, looking for the actual deflection in the sky from curved space time of a star. (It is photometric microlensing that demonstrates that the "missing mass" of galaxies is not stellar mass objects like neutron stars or black holes.) Very cool indeed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

ahh. when I opened the science abstract (I let my subscription lapse years ago) I was a little confused as microlensing has been around and regularly measured for decades, but that is photometric microlensing (tracking the brightness as a function of time to look for the brightening events to search for hidden foreground objects), but this was astrometric microlensing, looking for the actual deflection in the sky from curved space time of a star. (It is photometric microlensing that demonstrates that the "missing mass" of galaxies is not stellar mass objects like neutron stars or black holes.) Very cool indeed.

Was this predicted merely through theoretical physics?

Edit- building on what was known at the time of course.

Edit-edit- now I'm not entirely sure it wasn't this article...close time frame.

Astronomers see evidence of Einstein's theories in star orbiting massive black hole

More than 100 years ago, Albert Einstein predicted that light is deflected by extremely massive objects, but there is no way to test such powerful effects on…

new.nsf.gov

 

[Fervent]

Ty for clearing that up by calling facts "raw data".

Can raw data that is false be a fact?

Data isn't true or false, it just is. You're making a category error.

What part of proposition #1 or #3 look like "experiences" to you?

I do something, it seems to have a cause. I have bodily sensation, but somehow experience myself as an integrated whole. Both of those are directly drawn from everyday experience.

Ok....well I'll see if you can regard facts as false before I tell you how you are wrong.

Likely just going to be more of a comprehension error on your part, as that's all that you've presented so far.

I don't know and I've certainly never met any such experts.

Seems to me most people reckon themselves experts in such things. If only because we have no other choice.

That's not quite it.

That's literally what Occam formulated it as. Simple has a very specific definition when Occam's razor is mentioned, and it is about limiting ad hoc adjustments and taking on the fewest number of assumptions.

We've been over this.

That seems like a dodge. Is that or is that not your basic assumption in order to gather truth?

Ok.



You said you only knew one truth. No offense, but the mind-body problem isn't in the bible tmk.

I do know only one truth, everything else is best estimates. The Bible is not my only truth, and I don't presume the literal meanng to be the primary sense to take it in. Nor do I hold it beyond question.

Ok.




Ok.



That's exactly what it was.

No, it was deliberate and through a logical procedure. There's nothing ad hoc about it, because I'm not trying to prevent an assumption from being falsified.

Removing a term changes the original statement.

Not if it follows a consistent procedure. I used the law of identity to uncouple an assumption of physicalism from the empirically supported closure principle through applying the law of identity. If natural=physical were true then removing it in the fashion I did wouldn't change the situation. And uncoupling a term into two distinct propositions is generally a valid operation, unless you have some procedural objection to make.

Go back and read the law of identity.

I don't need to "read the law of identity". It's simply that a=a and wll always be a true statement, in this case nature=nature. Since nature has to be nature, but nature doesn;'t have to be physical, I can separate out physical closure into closure on the natural and the hypothesis that natural=physical and then consider that hypothesis on its own terms.

Definition nuetral. Hilarious. Is that any different from Definition missing?

No, the definitions in this case would likely be ostensive but what we consider those definitions to be doesn't matter. This type of analysis is examining concepts independent of the language we put them in by considering the relationships between the words. But the meaning of the words isn't as important because the whole process hinges on whether or not nature is natural.

This can be restated as natural = physical. Let's not multiply entities needlessly.

That would require justification of some sort, and I'm all ears if you want to make a case for it that isn't just begging the question. I can understand why you're having trouble with this, because it's typically not something that justification is asked for. But we can't just define nature how we want to understand it, which is what you're doing here.

I already asked if natural = physical and you said no.

Yeah, I don't believe it's a true statement. It's often an assumption that people make and then fail to justify, but it is the physicalist hypothesis which I used the law of identity to separate from closure.

Are you now saying it does?

Nope, I'm saying that's the hypothesis that I removed from the set of propositions that led to the dissolution of a conflict in our observations. In short, if I haven't made a procedural error mental phenomenon falsify the physicalist hypothesis. And rather than wrestling with that, those who have turned to science for salvation and solace keep crying in faith "We just need more data!" and refuse to even consider that their assumption may very well be false. At least, the mind-body problem presents a serious challenge to such an assumption.

 

[SelfSim]

You can call it a belief...you're not ignoring it though.

Believing is a choice. Sometimes I believe.
When I put on my scientific thinking hat, I shelve 'em.

..
It relies heavily on a belief.

You don't get to just skip to the part where "other minds" independent of your own exist without a reality that's independent of your mind.

It has nothing to do with the belief in a reality that's independent of my mind (MIR). MIR is your belief .. and not mine.

Moreso, it has to do with the simple observation that I can make sense of, and gain an understanding by communicating using language and shared meanings, with those other minds. My position is testable, under the MDR hypothesis, and then produces abundant evidence of that.
Your isn't testable .. therefore, its a belief.

Very little. It's a subject reference.

I'll stick with a testable model of self-awareness, which generates the context of 'me'.
Your position is simply believed by you .. as is evidenced by your lack of a cited objective test basis.

Speculation about what?

Speculation formed from models generated by minds. That's one of the attributes of my model of minds.

And it's entirely necessary for the scientific method.

An unsupported statement .. what do you expect me to do with it? Just believe it or something? Lol!

You can't.

You are mistaken .. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Your argument has devolved into childishness. I'm bored with it. Can't you lift your game?
PS: Don't expect further responses from me .. at least until you come up with something of interest.

You're assuming that no hallucination could ever be so convincing. If you're unaware of the evidence for that....sorry...but you're definitely wrong lol. Regardless, how would you know if you are not merely hallucinating that evidence?

Already answered: 'Because my mind is successfully making sense of my perceptions, when formed on the basis of that evidence.'
Where I could not make sense of my perceptions, I would conclude that I was hallucinating the evidence.
The process involved there, requires no assumptions.

Your answer makes it seem like you hold an unjustified belief in your own perception....which has nothing to do with science....or the scientific method.

Well its not my problem that you demonstrate an inability to understand the concepts I've gone over and over and you've consequently reached nothing more than that unevidenced opinion.

Edit- I noticed that you ignored the question of whether or not you are a postmodernist, etc.

I'm not going to shame you and call you some commie pinko or something...I'm simply curious where this is coming from. Postmodernists' greatest achievement is understanding that definitions are created....something I've known since about 10. Apparently though, they don't understand what definitions are for....which is why they rarely make any stick.

I am not interested in your labels/classifications of people.
Should I be?