Causal exclusion problem

[BCP1928]

Fair enough.

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?

I never imagined "faith" to be merely cognitive assent to truth of some proposition or the existence of some entity about which there may be variating degrees of demonstrability. Faith, as in religious faith, comes straight out of the cognitive domain. Faith is not is not a road to truth, it's a road around it.

 

[Fervent]

I never imagined "faith" to be merely cognitive assent to truth of some proposition or the existence of some entity about which there may be variating degrees of demonstrability. Faith, as in religious faith, comes straight out of the cognitive domain. Faith is not is not a road to truth, it's a road around it.

Faith has many definitions, and it doesn't need to be contrafactual or a way of avoiding truth. If we simply define it as trust in an external font of knowledge it is an unavoidable reality. We are not independent, blank slates capable of moving from our personal experience to truth unassisted. Faith, in this sense, is unavoidable as soon as we look outside of ourselves to learn. There's nothing special about "religious" faith, though many do abuse it by using it as a roadblock to inquiry. Everyone relies on faith of some sort, the question is just what we place our faith in.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

It isn't just him from what I can tell. I've heard of MDR before it just never interested me. Fortunately he is isolated in the Philosophy department (where belongs) as he has been for his entire career.

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.

Popper, Kuhn are the famous ones. I know of no research physics department in the country that has hired a philosopher (a few have hired mathematicians under the guise of "string theory" which is a different problem, but one that seems to be fading). For job applicants the only "philosophy" they want to see on your CV is after "Doctor of". (Abbreviations preferred).

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.

If you run into one at a social event you can always say "I like this chianti, do they have fava beans here?" That'll make them think you're nuts and they'll walk away. (cf. Guthrie, A. 1967 "Alice's Restaurant")

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.

I did reak Sokal's book years ago, but I found it hard to follow all of the unfamiliar terminology and usage.

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.

Part of the issue from the point of view of this non-read person is that "post-modernism" seems like a big mish-mash of ideas. More of a period description of a bunch of things that come after "modernism" than a coherent set of ideas. (And that's without including other "post-modern" things like architecture.) A "periodization" I think they call it.

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

That is clear. At least on the C&E sub-forum the intent is always obvious from the start.

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.

I just pulled Weinberg's "Facing Up" off the shelf to read again.

Science is a high castle for these midwits to conquer....but if allowed to control the meaning of words and avoid debate, they can.

From my high castle to them: "Something about elderberries..."

Cheers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Can you make up your mind:

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 added the bold.)

Sure looks like you are calling "physical" a model.

 

[Fervent]

Can you make up your mind:



(I added the bold.)

Sure looks like you are calling "physical" a model.

Yes, physical is the scientific model at present. Do you deny that science studies physical phenomena, and that the mode of study is by modeling? What do a quark and a caterpillar have in common, other than that they are subjects of scientific inquiry? Physical is a conceptual model of reality, but not the reality in and of itself.

I understand why you would object to calling it a model, since you are more than likely under the impression it's some kind of naive, basic fact. It's a model, nothing more.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

I am uninterested in your attempts to define science then.

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?

I am not interested in your attempts to characterize nature as "mysterious" for whatever nefarious ideological purpose.

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

I told you I was impressive, not famous. Most celebrities aren't that impressive.

What's to stop us?

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.

The whole thing seems to be nothing more than to insist that the non-existent exists. You can do that without me.

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

Once we finally got close to properly defining terms and explaining what was in the OP (something which you could have done from the begining) I found no interest in the "problem". I have dabbled in some of these "philosophical" questions (What is consiousness, do we have free, what is mind), but I have come to the conclusion that they are of no practical use in ordinary life, nor in my professional work.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What part of "stop making claims about me" do you not understand? I'm not interested in your god or any other or your self-agrandization.

 

[Fervent]

I am uninterested in your attempts to define science then.

Ok. I'm not really interested in interesting you.

I am not interested in your attempts to characterize nature as "mysterious" for whatever nefarious ideological purpose.

No ideological purposes. Just an observation.

I told you I was impressive, not famous. Most celebrities aren't that impressive.

A giant in your own mind, then? I haven't seen much that impresses out of you, at the very least.

The whole thing seems to be nothing more than to insist that the non-existent exists. You can do that without me.

Not at all, just that in the mind-body question there appears to be a dogmatic insistence on a particular understanding of reality that may not be warranted.

Once we finally got close to properly defining terms and explaining what was in the OP (something which you could have done from the begining) I found no interest in the "problem". I have dabbled in some of these "philosophical" questions (What is consiousness, do we have free, what is mind), but I have come to the conclusion that they are of no practical use in ordinary life, nor in my professional work.

I suppose you don't need a mind to do physics. Just running scripts, the universe investigating itself. Nope, no use for consciousness or free will.

What part of "stop making claims about me" do you not understand? I'm not interested in your god or any other or your self-agrandization.

I'm not the one who is impressed with myself. And I'm not making claims about you, I'm stating facts about the God I believe in. You're the one trying to dictate to me what my God is like, and ignoring when I am telling you you are mistaken. I can only take you at your word, and form opinions based on what you show me. I'm free to make whatever opinions about you I like, you have no say in the opinions that I hold.

 

[BCP1928]

It isn't just him from what I can tell. I've heard of MDR before it just never interested me. Fortunately he is isolated in the Philosophy department (where belongs) as he has been for his entire career.

Popper, Kuhn are the famous ones. I know of no research physics department in the country that has hired a philosopher (a few have hired mathematicians under the guise of "string theory" which is a different problem, but one that seems to be fading). For job applicants the only "philosophy" they want to see on your CV is after "Doctor of". (Abbreviations preferred).

The text for the philosophy of science class I took as an undergraduate (60+ years ago) was The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory by Pierre Duhem which I still have and still like. There were supplementary texts as well. The one I favored and also still have is Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg.

 

[BCP1928]

Faith has many definitions, and it doesn't need to be contrafactual or a way of avoiding truth. If we simply define it as trust in an external font of knowledge it is an unavoidable reality. We are not independent, blank slates capable of moving from our personal experience to truth unassisted. Faith, in this sense, is unavoidable as soon as we look outside of ourselves to learn. There's nothing special about "religious" faith, though many do abuse it by using it as a roadblock to inquiry. Everyone relies on faith of some sort, the question is just what we place our faith in.

No, I don't think so. Faith in the existence of a god is a cognitive act as you describe faith. Faith in God is an emotional act.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Ok...then surely you'd say you chose to believe this MDR stuff.

Fair enough.

Seems to me faith of some sort is unavoidable,

Well...belief is unavoidable.

at the very least as a surrender to some outside authority defining truth for us.

Or...belief in the method by which they approach truth.

The issue as I see it is we either seek out the one proposition that can't possibly be false

Ok.

I understand the resistance in not trusting revelation, and revelation is only one of the roads I depend upon.

Ok.

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 the

Ok

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.

I understand that you want to be understood, most people do...it's a very natural thing. I understand that you probably want to be understood and find those who agree...I hope you do.

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?

I have beliefs....which I assume true....but because I only assume them true, and cannot prove them....I must do the difficult task of discarding them when new evidence is provided.

I say its difficult because it is....our views, our perspectives, our beliefs are part of who we are on some level. Letting ones go and accepting new or more difficult ones....is ego destroying. Admitting you are or were wrong is a brave act of humility. You can lose a lot in the process. Decide how much you care about truth and what you're willing to sacrifice.

i) There is value in temporarily adopting the belief

This is what makes it look dishonest.

Without this so called "temporary adoption" you can't explain anything. Yet you abandon it to make room for god. Fine.

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).

For my part in that assessment of yours, I can assure you, I have no intentions of being dishonest

See above about what makes your claims dishonest. Temporary adoption? How temporary? Every moment you aren't praying? C'mon.

It's so much easier to lie to yourself than others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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).

See Model Selection:

Sorry...I should have been more clear.

I copy-pasted your description of MDR to find a published paper. The Allah praising philosopher is your guy. This isn't science. You aren't using the scientific method. You are disingenuous in claiming you are.

Since you probably don't know why your philosopher doesn't agree with either basic logic or Stephen Hawking....I can explain both if you want.

 

[Fervent]

No, I don't think so. Faith in the existence of a god is a cognitive act as you describe faith. Faith in God is an emotional act.

Faith is a total commitment, body, mind, and soul. It involves emotion, but also requires intellectual assent in some way. As an intellectual move it's not simply assent, but an act of surrender. It is acceptance that God is God, and not ourselves. Properly understood, there is no conflict with science but it's rare that these things are properly understood.

 

[Fervent]

Well...belief is unavoidable.

Unjustified belief, or belief due to necessity. At the end of the day, these beliefs are exempted from questioning. What better word for an unjustified belief that is exempt from questioning is there then faith?

Or...belief in the method by which they approach truth.

Trust in an external font of truth...sounds like faith to me.

Ok.




Ok.




Ok




I understand that you want to be understood, most people do...it's a very natural thing. I understand that you probably want to be understood and find those who agree...I hope you do.

I'm not so worried about being understood, especially given the emotional responses that I have elicited when what I am saying is understood by people who don't want it to be true.

I have beliefs....which I assume true....but because I only assume them true, and cannot prove them....I must do the difficult task of discarding them when new evidence is provided.

Those beliefs dictate the method you believe will produce truth, but the method is incapable of doing so because it is built upon consensus and there seems to be a consensus agreement not to question its foundations, which more than likely are the assumptions you've adopted. Not only can you not prove them, by the nature of your methods for seeking truth you cannot falsify them. Again, what better word to descrbe assumed beliefs that cannot be falsified than faith?

I say its difficult because it is....our views, our perspectives, our beliefs are part of who we are on some level. Letting ones go and accepting new or more difficult ones....is ego destroying. Admitting you are or were wrong is a brave act of humility. You can lose a lot in the process. Decide how much you care about truth and what you're willing to sacrifice.

Sage words. There's hope for you yet. I encourage you, see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It isn't just him from what I can tell. I've heard of MDR before it just never interested me. Fortunately he is isolated in the Philosophy department (where belongs) as he has been for his entire career.

I only heard of it a couple of times and like you...considered it in the vein of simulation theory.

Popper, Kuhn are the famous ones. I know of no research physics department in the country that has hired a philosopher (a few have hired mathematicians under the guise of "string theory" which is a different problem, but one that seems to be fading). For job applicants the only "philosophy" they want to see on your CV is after "Doctor of". (Abbreviations preferred).

Probably best to keep it that way.

If you run into one at a social event you can always say "I like this chianti, do they have fava beans here?" That'll make them think you're nuts and they'll walk away. (cf. Guthrie, A. 1967 "Alice's Restaurant")

It's funny you imagine I get invited to "social events" or try to attend them.

I did reak Sokal's book years ago, but I found it hard to follow all of the unfamiliar terminology and usage.

Probably because it deals quite a bit with arguably the most useful and therefore dangerous branches of philosophy....political philosophy.

Most political philosophy requires a contextual consideration of both the time and place it was written, the meanings held, where they were derived, whose works they built upon, etc.

As such, it's annoying, boring, tedious, and frequently misunderstood, filled with stupid ideas, and wildly misunderstood. I'd say the two most important books for understanding modern politics are sadly, machiavelli's The Prince....a profoundly deep and honest understanding of pragmatic reasons for the exercise of political power....and The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, a long and extremely dry boring tome that everyone knows contains the basics of capitalism, the word they don't understand or really even care to, that's shaped basically all international political dynamics as of today. One was banned for centuries and generally overlooked as irrelevant, it's not. The other was widely available and read by businessmen more than politicians or political philosophers....to their explicit advantage. It's a field that is only slightly larger than the books that discuss war as a philosophical genre of inquiry.

Part of the issue from the point of view of this non-read person is that "post-modernism" seems like a big mish-mash of ideas.

Sure.

More of a period description of a bunch of things that come after "modernism" than a coherent set of ideas. (And that's without including other "post-modern" things like architecture.) A "periodization" I think they call it.

It certainly presents itself as such. Post-modern. Most philosophy doesn't categorize itself as a period....that happens we'll after the fact. In calling themselves post-modernist...they are arrogantly claiming to be the future. A sort of stand against the slow march of progress made by science.

That is clear. At least on the C&E sub-forum the intent is always obvious from the start.

I just pulled Weinberg's "Facing Up" off the shelf to read again.

From my high castle to them: "Something about elderberries..."

I'm sure you are aware of the confusion the double slit experiment caused when explained to non-physicists. It could be something similar but related to that 2022 nonlocal reality Nobel Prize.

 

[SelfSim]

Ok...then surely you'd say you chose to believe this MDR stuff.

I'll temporarily 'try it on' for the purpose of clarifying my own thinking when someone tries to make claims which is clearly at odds with science's purpose and its claims .. (especially when I can see that those claims revolve around existence and reality topics).
This does not meet the criteria of the operational definition of belief I gave previously see also my post#163):

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Objective tests followed by the application of logic rules is a necessary condition).'

The MDR 'stuff' I'm always referring to, is a testable hypothesis .. and not some ridiculuous 'out there' mystical guru notion, or religious belief motivated by trying to shoehorn a belief in god into science .. the latter two of which I simply have no time for.

With this so called "temporary adoption" you can't explain anything. Yet you abandon it to make room for god. Fine.

See above about what makes your claims dishonest. Temporary adoption? How temporary? Every moment you aren't praying? C'mon.

It's so much easier to lie to yourself than others.

Well at least I can see you've for giving me shot at clarifying my position there .. and hopefully dispel the notion in your accusation. (Thank you for the opportunity).

Do you consider a testable hypothesis a lie?

I don't .. and if you don't, then the issue disappears because that's what I'm doing .. (ie: testing the hypothesis and looking at the results).
When I'm testing it, I adopt a neutral position on all beliefs, including religious ones (and their accompanying rituals). This clears the way so I can actually see the results.

See, the hypothesis requires that all ends of its results spectrum, from cult-like beliefs, to beliefs in the existence of mind independent reality, to scientific models, be viewable and not simply trashed because I don't like 'em.
People believe things and the MDR Hypothesis attempts to examine this natural phenomenon and position and explain it, within the full population of human thinkers.

PS: I don't pray and I do not have any 'god' beliefs, in my everyday existence. I trust you can relate with this(?) I have a depth in university level science education in Physics (and Chemistry) .. albeit not quite to the depth of an @Hans Blaster or @sjastro. That experience and my professional life drove me to continue investigating science to far greater depths .. and it continues.

 

[SelfSim]

Sorry...I should have been more clear.

I copy-pasted your description of MDR to find a published paper. The Allah praising philosopher is your guy. This isn't science. You aren't using the scientific method. You are disingenuous in claiming you are.

Since you probably don't know why your philosopher doesn't agree with either basic logic or Stephen Hawking....I can explain both if you want.

A Google search?? My goodness ..

Ok, so go right ahead and elaborate on your explanation there .. I'm all ears ..
I certainly have no interest in aligning with some Allah praising philosopher who is attempting to shoehorn religious beliefs into science.
I honestly, have never heard of this dude ... and I'll be amazed if he's coming from the same perspective as me and the MDR Hypothesis I've posted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll temporarily 'try it on' for the purpose of clarifying my own thinking when someone tries to make claims which is clearly at odds with science's purpose and its claims.

Uh huh...I don't think you're doing any science. I don't think you're a scientist in any field.

This does not meet the criteria of the operational definition of belief I gave previously see also my post#163):

I genuinely don't care about your personal definitions. I'm using the common tongue. Belief has a meaning and I won't be accommodating your personal definitions. Beliefs are beliefs.

belief

1. the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: 2. something…

dictionary.cambridge.org

The MDR 'stuff' I'm always referring to, is a testable hypothesis

Why do you believe that?

What could you possibly test it on?

Your belief that MDR is a testable hypothesis isn't something testable by the scientific method.

Do you consider a testable hypothesis a lie?

Depends upon the results and method used to achieve them.

I don't .. and if you don't, then the issue disappears because that's what I'm doing .. (ie: testing the hypothesis and looking at the results).

Oh no...I certainly have seen fraud. Take this lady for example....

McClain Probes $9.7 Million Taxpayer-Funded Study Buried by Activist Researcher on Puberty Blockers - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

You'd think she would be immediately stripped of her credentials, doctorate, ability to practice, etc.

America’s best-known practitioner of youth gender medicine is being sued

Johanna Olson-Kennedy leads the Centre for Transyouth at LA’s Children’s Hospital. One of her patients thinks she has been negligent

www.economist.com

Now she's being sued. She believed in a socially constructed reality that doesn't exist for physical testing. It's not really a problem if she understands this....but as a doctor, nobody cares what her social views are. They want facts from her as a Dr. They want accurate diagnosis. They want best practice treatment. It shouldn't matter that the evidence and facts contradicted her faith and beliefs....she should have reported the facts and adjusted her practice accordingly.

I hope she loses everything. A so-called expert motivated by personal beliefs of what is true....and not the evidence.

When I'm testing it, I adopt a neutral position on all beliefs,

Wow...since I've always considered that impossible to do, I would wonder why you would ever need to consult other minds? Clearly you're viewing things exactly as they are without any influence.

See, the hypothesis requires that all ends of its results spectrum, from cult-like beliefs, to beliefs in the existence of mind independent reality, to scientific models, be viewable and not simply trashed because I don't like 'em.

If you think that's some sort of problem for me....we can compare just how many different beliefs and worldviews we've considered.

Do you think a rain-dance can make it rain?

PS: I don't pray and I do not have any 'god' beliefs, in my everyday existence. I trust you can relate with this(?) I have a depth in university level science education in Physics (and Chemistry).

I find this disappointing. I've understood education is in decline...but I would expect some sort of bare bones understanding of how we reached the scientific method (as it currently stands) for someone with a degree in physics or chemistry.

Edit- Sorry, I would have sworn there was some god-stuff at the bottom of your link to the MDR manifesto.

Edit-edit- here it is....

Thus far, it appears to me that the core belief in 'Atheism', involves ruling out (excluding) the core belief of 'Theism' .. and doing so, requires a belief in of itself, (where what I mean by 'belief' there, is given by the above distinction)

There's no core belief to atheism. It's simply a label denoting someone who doesn't believe in gods. We don't do this for every type of person who doesn't believe in something....like unicorns....but we probably would if everyone believed in unicorns except a minority of people. The set of things you don't believe in is infinitely larger than the set of things you do believe in. The idea that you would hold a "core belief" for each thing in this set of all things that you don't believe in is a waste of time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's funny you imagine I get invited to "social events" or try to attend them.

Did you also practice "anti-social distancing" in 2020?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you also practice "anti-social distancing" in 2020?

I said what is social distancing? Then learned I had to change nothing.

Apparently, I was deemed "necessary" for work. I can attest to that....but the rest of this Department? No way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A Google search?? My goodness ..

Ok, so go right ahead and elaborate on your explanation there .. I'm all ears ..
I certainly have no interest in aligning with some Allah praising philosopher who is attempting to shoehorn religious beliefs into science.

I think he's recycling subjective realism to some degree.

Subjective idealism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This form of idealism is "subjective" not because it denies that there is an objective reality, but because it asserts that this reality is completely dependent upon the minds of the subjects that perceive it.

Does that look familiar? Sure...we can add the term models in there a few times to make it closer. Philosophy tends to rewrite the same things over and over in new ways.