- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,646
- 2,850
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
This is nothing but self-assured conjecture. The model only captures phenomena that are amenable to research, and is nothing but a fiction created by human imagination. To hold it as anything more is to deny the need for scientific research, because if the model is complete and identical with reality it would not only not be useful, but there would be no need for further development. It is quite possible that there are transient phenomena that don't fit the model and are discarded as erroneous data points when they show up within the measurements. The model relies on human honesty and human understanding, and only reflects the current agreements that people hold. Terms like "objective" mean nothing more than that a consensus exists, and are deceptive of the reality.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 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.
Glad to hear there are no mysteries in the universe to you. That's quite the accomplishment.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?
Questions of mind-body relationship fit within anthropology(in the sense of composition of human beings, not as the field of sociology) While I certainly am not forwarding a scientific theory, I am raising questions of scientific interest.Huh?
Uh huh. Look, if you want to think yourself no more valueable than an amoeba and the products of your thinking as nothing more than random collisions of particles following arbitrary laws, that's your perogative. I thnk you're rather silly in doing so, especially in thinking that somehow comes from anything resembling intelligence. Just meat doing math. That may be enough for you, but it seems to me you've settled for a false wealth.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.
CertainlyI 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.
You've done a subtle shell game in conflating "physical" with "real" without justifying the move. I assume you exclude certain things from physical, that it has some real meaning to you other than just being a catch-all word to describe any and all possibilities, no? So what is that definition, and how did you determine that is the extent of the real?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.
Certainly looks that way to me. You're just chemistry and electricity, noise within a noisy and meaningless cosmos. No purpose, only pain.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.
Upvote
0