Causal exclusion problem

[Fervent]

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.

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.

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?

Glad to hear there are no mysteries in the universe to you. That's quite the accomplishment.

Huh?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Certainly

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.

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?

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.

Certainly looks that way to me. You're just chemistry and electricity, noise within a noisy and meaningless cosmos. No purpose, only pain.

 

[BCP1928]

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.

Glad to hear there are no mysteries in the universe to you. That's quite the accomplishment.

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.

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.

Certainly

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?

Certainly looks that way to me. You're just chemistry and electricity, noise within a noisy and meaningless cosmos. No purpose, only pain.

Have you never wondered why Christians swear weekly to a theological proposition which strongly implies that there is no mind without a brain?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Data isn't true or false, it just is.

If it's not true....the contradiction can be ignored.

It's only a logical contradiction if those propositions are true.

I do something, it seems to have a cause. I have bodily sensation, but somehow experience myself as an integrated whole.

I don't care.

That's literally what Occam formulated it as.

Nope.

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.

Still missing something.

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

Again, we've been over this. Look up a previous post if you think it matters.

No, it was deliberate and through a logical procedure.

There's no logical contradiction if the statements aren't true.

Not if it follows a consistent procedure.

Nope. If you can show me the "consistent procedure" exception....I'll admit I'm wrong.

I don't need to "read the law of identity". It's simply that a=a and wll always be a true statement

Nope.

Yeah, I don't believe it's a true statement.

Then you broke the law of identity.

Nope

Yup. There's no procedure that is a loophole for the law of identity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Was this predicted merely through theoretical physics?

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

Yes, light deflection by a gravitating mass was a prediction of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (Deflection by the Sun during an eclipse in 1918/9, I forget which, was the first successful test of GR.)

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

Massive black holes are exceedingly common in spiral galaxies and finding one at the center of our Galaxy would quite expected. The orbits of these stars measure how much concentrated mass is at the focus of the orbit of about 4 million solar masses (a relative small supermassive BH). There isn't any way to pack normal matter into the available volume, so it is either a BH or something more exotic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Believing is a choice.

Is it?

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.

Then why can't you avoid speaking of things independent of your mind?

Moreso, it has to do with the simple observation that I can make sense of,

Observation of what?

and gain an understanding by communicating using language and shared meanings, with those other minds.

You sharing language with minds you hallucinate is pretty common.

Your position is simply believed by you .. as is evidenced by your lack of a cited objective test basis.

I don't know why you keep repeating this. I already stated it myself. The only difference between our views is honesty.

You have absolutely no evidence of anything existing apart from your mind....at all.

To even begin considering evidence of an objective reality....you have to assume it exists.

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

You don't have models.

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

Intellectual snobbery....more indicators of postmodernism.

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

I agree....and your imaginary unsupported mind models will never approach anything remotely close to the scientific method.

I can just dismiss them....you don't believe evidence exists apart from your own imagination.

Already answered: 'Because my mind is successfully making sense of my perceptions,

How do you know those perceptions aren't hallucinations?

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is nothing but self-assured conjecture.

I thought we were headed to a productive place. Oh well...

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 have serious doubts that actual philosophers use the definitions of natural and physical you presented. [If they do, insert blanket dismissal of philosophy of science here.] We make models of the physical, not call our models physical.

Glad to hear there are no mysteries in the universe to you.

That's not what I said.

That's quite the accomplishment.

I am quite impressive.

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.

Again, not a way I'd ever heard that issue categorized.

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.

I didn't say I viewed mysef as more valuable than an amoeba. I am a human and I value humans above other animals. (Which is why I don't have any moral quandaries eating them.) I also value myself more than any of you. (Has that correct your assessment of my lowly thinking?)

Just meat doing math.

My math is second rate. I am a mammal that does physics.

That may be enough for you, but it seems to me you've settled for a false wealth.

And this seems to be your hang-up. Being just another animal with self-awareness isn't good enough for you. [removes shrink hat.]

Certainly

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?

I leave out gods and spirits and souls and other undetected things from what is "physical". I probably would not put "concepts" in the "physical category".

So what is that definition, and how did you determine that is the extent of the real?

Perhaps numbers are real. I don't know. It doesn't seem that important.

Certainly looks that way to me. You're just chemistry and electricity, noise within a noisy and meaningless cosmos. No purpose, only pain.

That we are no different that the rest of the mammals really bothers you, doesn't it? My purpose is mine to determine.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, light deflection by a gravitating mass was a prediction of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (Deflection by the Sun during an eclipse in 1918/9, I forget which, was the first successful test of GR.)

Massive black holes are exceedingly common in spiral galaxies and finding one at the center of our Galaxy would quite expected. The orbits of these stars measure how much concentrated mass is at the focus of the orbit of about 4 million solar masses (a relative small supermassive BH). There isn't any way to pack normal matter into the available volume, so it is either a BH or something more exotic.

Ty @Hans Blaster , I appreciate you providing a practical example of expertise, and since I have at least a bare bones understanding of the underlying epistemology....and I agree it's viable as a path to truth in many ways.....I can now just refer to this post anytime @Fervent asks why I trust in other people who hold expertise I don't.

If we consider all we know, and all that could be known, the latter is infinitely greater. It would be ridiculous not to defer to expertise under certain circumstances.

I have a feeling we're both going to be done here so if you don't mind....what's your understanding of the MDR idea being floated around here? I'm familiar with the last time postmodernist definition butchers tried to tangle with scientific method and it went spectacularly bad for them...but only because they didn't have any grasp of it's basis. It was sort of a last ditch attempt at philosophy to stay relevant and arguably, there's few "important" philosophers at all now.

Postmodernism is trying hard to make a comeback though and it can do so through uneducated students who are unwilling to push back upon ideas presented to them. I still recall a student teacher from my days in college in a class on middle east political theory. He asked the class of 7 what role Islam had in politics and I replied "consensus building" and was told that I was wrong, that was insulting to even suggest, I shouldn't even consider it as something so shallow. I tried to explain how it's cultural ties were used by theocratic leaders towards non-islamic ends. He wasn't having it....

Then the exchange student from Jordan spoke up and said he actually agreed with me...and it was a means of consensus building in multiple ways.

One of those rare times I brushed up against this postmodernist sophistry. I don't see anyone above critique. Is this MDR thing popping up internally because of some real value? Or is it external and non-scientific in origin?

 

[BCP1928]

And this seems to be your hang-up. Being just another animal with self-awareness isn't good enough for you. [removes shrink hat.]

Being just another mammal but with self-awareness seems to me an entirely satisfactory description of our condition. And although I know you don't care, it seems satisfactory from the standpoint of Christian doctrine as well.

 

[SelfSim]

Is it?

It is a choice .. provided one has made the effort to distinguished the belief in the first place.

Then why can't you avoid speaking of things independent of your mind?

i) There is value in temporarily adopting the belief, in order to inject efficiency into communications with believers of it. Its also embedded in our language with words like 'it', 'is', 'object' etc .. but that doesn't make it a mind independently truth (far from it in fact). Eons of religious beliefs have left their marks on words chosen to reinforce the core belief about the existence of a mind independent reality;

ii) 'Things independent of my mind', is a model I can adopt (by choice). It is distinguishable as a model, via the MDR hypothesis. I don't have to believe that it references an actually, truly existing, mind independent reality however, (namely because that belief requires a mind to conceive it .. which defeats the whole concept of what mind independence means).

I don't know why you keep repeating this. I already stated it myself. The only difference between our views is honesty.

For my part in that assessment of yours, I can assure you, I have no intentions of being dishonest and that's the first time you've made that claim in our sub-conversations. Are you confusing me with someone else?
My main aim is to maintain integrity and clarify what I present, where, by 'integrity' I mean: completeness and wholeness.
In order to see that integrity, requires the distinctions for which you presently display no signs of 'getting'.

What's yours?

Observation of what?
...
You sharing language with minds you hallucinate is pretty common.
...
You have absolutely no evidence of anything existing apart from your mind....at all.
..
To even begin considering evidence of an objective reality....you have to assume it exists.
..
You don't have models.
...
How do you know those perceptions aren't hallucinations?
...
I can just dismiss them....you don't believe evidence exists apart from your own imagination.

Your above claims perplex me .. and that's after after all our conversing on this topic!

Can I ask whether you're perhaps trying to justify your opinion of: that I am a solipsist? If so, I can elaborate on why the MDR hypothesis stands very distinct from this common misperception.
FWIW: I'd start by stating my personal view with honesty .. that is: that solipsism is an empty and purposeles philosophy.

I agree....and your imaginary unsupported mind models will never approach anything remotely close to the scientific method.

You confuse a category with a sub-category within a hiearchy of categories.
A model is a model and the scientific method is a method where 'a method', is a distinct type of model.

'Models' implies at least one active, healthy mind to conceive, (with that claim being based on abundant evidence .. with no evidence supporting anything mind independent in reaching that conclusion in that process). Show me a model and I'll show you the evidence of a mind having conceived it. I mean where else do you thing those come from? A mystical aether or something?
(Yet another test of the MDR hypothesis passed .. producing more evidence of mind dependence).

 

[SelfSim]

I have a feeling we're both going to be done here so if you don't mind....what's your understanding of the MDR idea being floated around here? I'm familiar with the last time postmodernist definition butchers tried to tangle with scientific method and it went spectacularly bad for them...but only because they didn't have any grasp of it's basis. It was sort of a last ditch attempt at philosophy to stay relevant and arguably, there's few "important" philosophers at all now.

Postmodernism is trying hard to make a comeback though and it can do so through uneducated students who are unwilling to push back upon ideas presented to them. I still recall a student teacher from my days in college in a class on middle east political theory. He asked the class of 7 what role Islam had in politics and I replied "consensus building" and was told that I was wrong, that was insulting to even suggest, I shouldn't even consider it as something so shallow. I tried to explain how it's cultural ties were used by theocratic leaders towards non-islamic ends. He wasn't having it....

Then the exchange student from Jordan spoke up and said he actually agreed with me...and it was a means of consensus building in multiple ways.

One of those rare times I brushed up against this postmodernist sophistry. I don't see anyone above critique. Is this MDR thing popping up internally because of some real value? Or is it external and non-scientific in origin?

Whaa? A pathetic attempt to set up a personal authority figure, then appeal to them!
(I hope @Hans Blaster doesn't fall for this ..)

 

[Fervent]

I thought we were headed to a productive place. Oh well...

I have serious doubts that actual philosophers use the definitions of natural and physical you presented. [If they do, insert blanket dismissal of philosophy of science here.] We make models of the physical, not call our models physical.

I didn't present any definition of the two, other than to hold that natural=natural, and that physical has some meaning beyond simply being natural.

That's not what I said.

I suppose not quite, but it's certainly an implication of claiming to find the universe comprehensible.

I am quite impressive.

A celebrity in your own mind.

Again, not a way I'd ever heard that issue categorized.

And the problem is...?

I didn't say I viewed mysef as more valuable than an amoeba. I am a human and I value humans above other animals. (Which is why I don't have any moral quandaries eating them.) I also value myself more than any of you. (Has that correct your assessment of my lowly thinking?)

Why should this be the case? Other humans are either instruments or obstacles, if it all comes down to chemstry and electricity than any value placed is arbitrary.

My math is second rate. I am a mammal that does physics.

Clearly you have opinions about what is real beyond the limited bit of physics research you specialize in.

And this seems to be your hang-up. Being just another animal with self-awareness isn't good enough for you. [removes shrink hat.]

Not at all. My "hang up" is an imposed understanding on reality many assume without justification. This is purely an epistemic issue, with metaphysical implications.

I leave out gods and spirits and souls and other undetected things from what is "physical". I probably would not put "concepts" in the "physical category".

God is not "a god", though while doing research it is fair to assume that there will be no special intervention over and above the ordinary "processes"...the issue is you speak of "physical" which is generally understood an ontological term, but you're using it for phenomenal description. And excluding a category of phenomenon that seems to exist and have causal efficacy because it does not fit with your assumption of "physical". It is not my definitions that get in the way, it is yours.

Perhaps numbers are real. I don't know. It doesn't seem that important.

Importance depends on what we are discussing, in the mind-body problem questions of universals become an issue since the general solution of nomenalism is no longer justifiable.

That we are no different that the rest of the mammals really bothers you, doesn't it? My purpose is mine to determine.

Not quite. Though I do believe we've hit on the real issue, you want to be your own god. And physics gives you the false promise that you can be, so long as you never turn around and question your imposition of physicality onto reality.

 

[Fervent]

Ty @Hans Blaster , I appreciate you providing a practical example of expertise, and since I have at least a bare bones understanding of the underlying epistemology....and I agree it's viable as a path to truth in many ways.....I can now just refer to this post anytime @Fervent asks why I trust in other people who hold expertise I don't.

It's not a question of consult experts in their specialies. It's about a collective agreement to be led by blind men, so long as there is a general consensus.

If we consider all we know, and all that could be known, the latter is infinitely greater. It would be ridiculous not to defer to expertise under certain circumstances.

That applies not only for ourselves, but those experts you seek to consult. Within the narrow confines of their specialty they may be able to make commentary, but as far as I can tell there aren't any experts on what reality is at bottom. Though many seem to assume that we know it well enough to declare what does and does not exist. But hey, as long as no one briings up the question and anytime someone does the wagons circle up we can pretend that science is all that's needed. Who cares about what's true, right? Just the thing that gives us neat gadgets and gizmos and a sense that we know something(despite our ignorance far outstripping even the collective knowledge).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ty @Hans Blaster , I appreciate you providing a practical example of expertise, and since I have at least a bare bones understanding of the underlying epistemology....and I agree it's viable as a path to truth in many ways.....I can now just refer to this post anytime @Fervent asks why I trust in other people who hold expertise I don't.

No problem.

If we consider all we know, and all that could be known, the latter is infinitely greater. It would be ridiculous not to defer to expertise under certain circumstances.

I have a feeling we're both going to be done here so if you don't mind....what's your understanding of the MDR idea being floated around here? I'm familiar with the last time postmodernist definition butchers tried to tangle with scientific method and it went spectacularly bad for them...but only because they didn't have any grasp of it's basis. It was sort of a last ditch attempt at philosophy to stay relevant and arguably, there's few "important" philosophers at all now.

I had to do a little look up to know exactly what it is (I haven't been reading those posts in that sub-thread), but I don't buy it. While it is true that anything you, or I, or anyone comes to know about arrives through our senses, to claim that all of reality is only in your mind, or that your mind (or anyone else's) is essential to the existence of reality is a bit much. I put it with the "mind in a vat" and "simulation theory" models. Just accepting that reality exists seems reasonable if you've ever interacted with another being with their own mind.

Postmodernism is trying hard to make a comeback though and it can do so through uneducated students who are unwilling to push back upon ideas presented to them. I still recall a student teacher from my days in college in a class on middle east political theory. He asked the class of 7 what role Islam had in politics and I replied "consensus building" and was told that I was wrong, that was insulting to even suggest, I shouldn't even consider it as something so shallow. I tried to explain how it's cultural ties were used by theocratic leaders towards non-islamic ends. He wasn't having it....

Then the exchange student from Jordan spoke up and said he actually agreed with me...and it was a means of consensus building in multiple ways.

I'm generally not a fan of postmodernism of most kinds. I'm sure there are a few ideas worth using, but that is true of most things. It ls a lot like morality in that I find it dissatisfying to let any one "school of thought" stand supreme.

One of those rare times I brushed up against this postmodernist sophistry. I don't see anyone above critique. Is this MDR thing popping up internally because of some real value? Or is it external and non-scientific in origin?

I don't know. I do wonder if it has anything to do with misunderstandings about "observer effects" in QM.

 

[SelfSim]

I had to do a little look up to know exactly what it is (I haven't been reading those posts in that sub-thread), but I don't buy it.

And, FWIW, I'd agree that there's no compelling reason 'to buy it' at all, in order to do science.
Proper practice of science does a grand job without anyone having to 'buy' any philosophical viewpoints.

While it is true that anything you, or I, or anyone comes to know about arrives through our senses, to claim that all of reality is only in your mind, or that your mind (or anyone else's) is essential to the existence of reality is a bit much.

Just to clarify, the MDR perspective outlined in the MDR Hypothesis, explicitly distinguishes itself from the first of those claims. It then addresses the various possible contexts of the word 'reality' and narrows focus in tentatively asserting that; In science, 'reality' means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions:

'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'.

Secondly, it notes that scientific models don't explicitly include our minds in the reality model because this is a standard idealization practice used throuhgout science. This claim is totally different from claiming that a model that doesn't include a role of the mind, doesn't require a role of the mind to interpret and use that model:

'2) it is clear that most scientific models do not explicitly include our minds in the model. This is a standard type of idealization, constantly used in science, and is totally different from claiming that a model that does not explicitly include a role of the mind, does not require a role of the mind to interpret and use that model'.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's about a collective agreement to be led by blind men, so long as there is a general consensus.

Don't worry about that....I've rejected consensus before when appropriate.

That applies not only for ourselves, but those experts you seek to consult.

Right....and I'm sure you understand that I don't accept faith/revelation as a means to discovering truth.

Whaa? A pathetic attempt to set up a personal authority figure, then appeal to them!
(I hope @Hans Blaster doesn't fall for this ..)

This is the most amusing thing I've seen on the thread. If you imagine we're buddies or he has some motive to comply with my request (other than an honest answer) you obviously have no idea how often we've argued.

He's mentioned his expertise before. I have asked him physics questions before. If someone claims expertise in something that I believe one can be an expert in....I grant them as a viable source of reliable information in that field. It doesn't matter if @Hans Blaster has frequently disagreed with me, often questions my character or motives, doubts the reliability of my conclusions, or outright thinks I'm dumb.

None of those things would alter my acceptance of his expertise in his field. It's not easily acquired.

 

[Fervent]

Don't worry about that....I've rejected consensus before when appropriate.

Fair enough.

Right....and I'm sure you understand that I don't accept faith/revelation as a means to discovering truth.

Seems to me faith of some sort is unavoidable, at the very least as a surrender to some outside authority defining truth for us. The issue as I see it is we either seek out the one proposition that can't possibly be false(that is to say the thing that can only be defined in terms of itself) and go from there, or we accept a completely unjustified assumption as if it is a naive truth that we have no way of turning around and critiquing. I understand the resistance in not trusting revelation, and revelation is only one of the roads I depend upon. My point in this thread is more about raising a question about whether or not attempts to build a physical model of the mind are imposing an understanding on reality or if they are taking the available observations and letting the theory flow from that regardless of what it means metaphysically or modifications it requires to our methods. For the sake of this conversation, my aim is purely a matter of how we imagine the "self", because it seems a physical description is woefully inadequate and necessarily incomplete.

I expected this thread to go towards bigger questions and divide upon lines of faith when I first posted it, so I am not surprised that that's the direction it seems to have taken. It seems to be the case, at least from where I'm sitting, that assumptions about the world that we have in common being primal and self-sufficient that are required for arriving at "truth" built from scratch and reaching out of the epistemic gutter we find ourselves in. For me, faith isn't me moving towards God but a reaction and a submission to God approaching me. It is something that I must depend on after finding every other avenue to truth without a true foundation.

The mind-body problem is a question of scientific interest, and it seems to me that we must question whether or not research into it is not being mislead by insistence on a philosophical question. Which is why I say problems such as this one and the hard problem are proper for scientific discussion, rather than just steadfastly trying to explain away consciousness by denying our basic experiences. If it truly is the case that neuroscence is finding ways to deny efficacy to our intention, then it seems to me more reasonable to reject the neuroscience as being properly understood than it is to deny that my basic experiences are in some way illusion. It seems to me that such a move necessarily undermines the very idea that we can trust science if our only basis for trusting it comes from collective experience.

So whle you may deny that "faith" is a road to truth, I must ask how you avoid some functional equivalent? You appear to be concerned with believing what is true, so how do you avoid invoking faith in either the blind leading the blind through science and human philosophy, or seeking out some omniscient agent to ground your search on?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I had to do a little look up to know exactly what it is (I haven't been reading those posts in that sub-thread), but I don't buy it. While it is true that anything you, or I, or anyone comes to know about arrives through our senses, to claim that all of reality is only in your mind, or that your mind (or anyone else's) is essential to the existence of reality is a bit much. I put it with the "mind in a vat" and "simulation theory" models. Just accepting that reality exists seems reasonable if you've ever interacted with another being with their own mind.

I dug into it a little further. It appears to come from some CUNY "philosopher of science". One Muhammed Ali Khalid...

Anyway, it seems his goal in this (based on a few lectures) is to shoehorn indigenous myths, folklore, and of course....socially constructed categories like gender into the category of "objectively real" the way we might consider a star real.

I don't really know what a philosopher of science is....but I don't think you should be surprised to see more of these people popping up in your department. I only caught on because this is the third time I've seen it. They always mess with definitions, new definitions are less useful, and despite an insistence upon logic....this philosopher either doesn't know what he's saying or doesn't understand logic.....or he's dishonest.

I'd keep them at arm's length.

I'm generally not a fan of postmodernism of most kinds. I'm sure there are a few ideas worth using, but that is true of most things. It ls a lot like morality in that I find it dissatisfying to let any one "school of thought" stand supreme.

I'd suggest you watch Chomsky's critique of postmodernism. It's pretty short and rather scathing. I've considered what good I can say of them....but as to their aims.....I'll reserve any praise.

Regardless, if you'd consider my advice, should these ideas keep popping up in physics they will grind it to a halt in endless argument of truth....keep them at arms length.

The poster here simply wants to use it to push his god into reality.

I don't know. I do wonder if it has anything to do with misunderstandings about "observer effects" in QM.

That was my initial thought....but it's the definition switching that gave it away. "Pointers".....basically anything anyone wants to call evidence are it's tie to objective reality.

These are philosophers claiming to have a better understanding of the scientific method....as if those issues weren't resolved long ago. They offer no reason for us to consider them correct. Science is a high castle for these midwits to conquer....but if allowed to control the meaning of words and avoid debate, they can.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't present any definition of the two, other than to hold that natural=natural, and that physical has some meaning beyond simply being natural.

You did (finally) specify what you meant by "physical" and I didn't find your "model" formulation to be a reasonable usage. I seriously doubt acutal philosophers use such a description, but I'm done with these word games. Nothing it turns out in your OP is of any interest to me.

I suppose not quite, but it's certainly an implication of claiming to find the universe comprehensible.

It's a matter of better preparation to understand the Universe. We go closer to the 'core' in our basic training. It's not surprising that I am more comfortable saying that than say a chemist would. The Universe isn't some big incomprehensible mystery and I see no reason to talk of it that way.

A celebrity in your own mind.

Not at all. I do know some "famous" people (the kind who appear as talking heads on science docos and write popular science books) but I am not even close to famous.

And the problem is...?

Why should this be the case? Other humans are either instruments or obstacles, if it all comes down to chemstry and electricity than any value placed is arbitrary.

No, we're not going to go there.

Clearly you have opinions about what is real beyond the limited bit of physics research you specialize in.

I do, but this thread was about your proposal and the usages, and not mine.

Not at all. My "hang up" is an imposed understanding on reality many assume without justification. This is purely an epistemic issue, with metaphysical implications.

This is getting tiring.

God is not "a god",

Flashback! We went around with your word games in *another* thread because you couldn't detach things to allow your god to be in a category of supernatural/superpowerful beings that humans believe (or have believed) exist. Not going there again.

though while doing research it is fair to assume that there will be no special intervention over and above the ordinary "processes"...the issue is you speak of "physical" which is generally understood an ontological term, but you're using it for phenomenal description. And excluding a category of phenomenon that seems to exist and have causal efficacy because it does not fit with your assumption of "physical". It is not my definitions that get in the way, it is yours.

Importance depends on what we are discussing, in the mind-body problem questions of universals become an issue since the general solution of nomenalism is no longer justifiable.

I assume you just like hearing yourself talk. I certainly don't.

Not quite. Though I do believe we've hit on the real issue, you want to be your own god.

Oh look my favorite feature of CF (NOT!): Christians telling my about my beliefs regarding their god, and similar.

What would I do with godhood (other than smite you for this thread)?

And physics gives you the false promise that you can be, so long as you never turn around and question your imposition of physicality onto reality.

 

[Fervent]

You did (finally) specify what you meant by "physical" and I didn't find your "model" formulation to be a reasonable usage. I seriously doubt acutal philosophers use such a description, but I'm done with these word games. Nothing it turns out in your OP is of any interest to me.

The model doesn't define "physical" it defines science and what science produces. You're jumping to conclusions.

It's a matter of better preparation to understand the Universe. We go closer to the 'core' in our basic training. It's not surprising that I am more comfortable saying that than say a chemist would. The Universe isn't some big incomprehensible mystery and I see no reason to talk of it that way.

Right, there's no mysteries. It's all fully explicable by the human mind, right? There are no open questions or things that we can't make sense of, no weirdness. You know what the "core" is, all I have to ask is how did you determine that?

Not at all. I do know some "famous" people (the kind who appear as talking heads on science docos and write popular science books) but I am not even close to famous.

Sarcasm isn't always caught in text, so I understand your taking that statement literally.

No, we're not going to go there.

What's to stop us?

I do, but this thread was about your proposal and the usages, and not mine.

Yeah, and this thread highlights that you're unwilling to question those things and can't seem to recognize them when they are staring you in the face. Or at least while they are operatng within your mind.

This is getting tiring.

I agree, maybe you could raise a substantive reply to my OP rather than just trying to deny that the problem exists?

Flashback! We went around with your word games in *another* thread because you couldn't detach things to allow your god to be in a category of supernatural/superpowerful beings that humans believe (or have believed) exist. Not going there again.

Supernatural is a useless word. It's a word without any real meaning. God is not a member of a class of other similar beings. And it's not a matter of me being unable to detach things, it's a refusal to accept your premises as valid because you insist on a synthetic assumption as your foundation.

I assume you just like hearing yourself talk. I certainly don't.

Nope, these little spats serve a higher purpose for me. Maybe you'll recognize the beam sticking out of your eye one day and see that you are naked and blind.

Oh look my favorite feature of CF (NOT!): Christians telling my about my beliefs regarding their god, and similar.

No telling you your beliefs, since I'm the one who believes in God the only definition that matters is mine. It's a take it or leave it proposition, not something open to debate.

What would I do with godhood (other than smite you for this thread)?

You said it yourself, define your own meaning. And morals. And on and on. God demands demolishing all idols, denying ourselves and following Him. You reject Him because you want to be in charge of your life and belong only to yourself. It's a moral issue, not an epistemic one.

 

[SelfSim]

I dug into it a little further. It appears to come from some CUNY "philosopher of science". One Muhammed Ali Khalid...

Anyway, it seems his goal in this (based on a few lectures) is to shoehorn indigenous myths, folklore, and of course....socially constructed categories like gender into the category of "objectively real" the way we might consider a star real.

Really? That's all news to me!

So you dug into .. what exactly?
References please?

Most (if not all?) of the MDR Hypothesis is consistent with the Stephen Hawking's/Leonard Mlodinow's Model Dependent Realism outlined in Hawking's 2010 book: 'The Grand Design'. (Reference: see Model Dependent Realism here).

That was my initial thought....but it's the definition switching that gave it away. "Pointers".....basically anything anyone wants to call evidence are it's tie to objective reality.

See Model Selection:

While not rejecting the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", model-dependent realism suggests that we cannot know "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", but only an approximation of it provided by the intermediary of models. The view of models in model-dependent realism also is related to the instrumentalist approach to modern science, that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality (a matter possibly impossible to establish).