Status
Not open for further replies.

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Ophiolite said:
SelfSim said:
The widely documented and taught scientific method contains no such assumptions of: 'If something exists outside our minds .. then continue doing science'.
False
From the online Khan Academy (a non-profit educational academy) .. as a random example:
The scientific method:
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
  1. Make an observation.
  2. Ask a question.
  3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation
  4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
  5. Test the prediction.
  6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
.. No evidence there of any preconditional assumptions there about 'something existing outside of our minds'.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So take a measuring instrument, which itself can easily be objectively demonstrated as being designed by human minds, (via for eg: human signed design documents).
Apparently you fail to understand my meaning; no measuring instrument can be "objectively" demonstrated as being designed by human minds, since you cannot "objectively" demonstrate the existence of other minds (beyond your own mind). If all your life was only a dream created unconsciously by your own mind (which is the basic idea of solipsism) there were no other minds and everything, including your operational definitions, would be just illusions created by your own mind, such as a dream or an hallucination.
You are assuming that other minds exist, and therefore you are assuming that "something" exists outside your own mind, which is the basic assumption of science as well as of everybody, I dare say. This assumtion is so basic that it needs not to be made explicit.
I think you don't believe that I am just an imaginary character created by your own mind.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Apparently you fail to understand my meaning; no measuring instrument can be "objectively" demonstrated as being designed by human minds, since you cannot "objectively" demonstrate the existence of other minds (beyond your own mind).
I can test objectively that other minds exist (easily).
I can test for the existence of your mind right now. Its all in the meaning you communicate via the words you use. See my underline in what you said above. You said 'my meaning'. Now, tell me how else you could have a meaning without first having a mind? Where do you think that meaning came from?

You just don't understand the MDR hypothesis. I believe I gave you the link previously which spelled it out, didn't I?
Edit: Here is the MDR Hypothesis in its first form .. and again in its revised form (apologies if it wasn't in the link I posted .. hope this clarifies). More on what distinguishes the MDR Hypothesis from Solipsism here.

mmarco said:
If all your life was only a dream created unconsciously by your own mind (which is the basic idea of solipsism) there were no other minds and everything, including your operational definitions, would be just illusions created by your own mind, such as a dream or an hallucination.
.. So? Who cares about some hypothetical? I certainly don't because the MDR hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.
Why are you still talking about solipsism?
mmarco said:
You are assuming that other minds exist, and therefore you are assuming that "something" exists outside your own mind, which is the basic assumption of science as well as of everybody, I dare say. This assumtion is so basic that it needs not to be made explicit.
Nope .. that's what you're assuming .. for some reason(?)
I'm testing for other minds.
mmarco said:
I think you don't believe that I am just an imaginary character created by your own mind.
I don't have to believe that. I can test for that .. and I did above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I can test objectively that other minds exist (easily).
I can test for the existence of your mind right now. Its all in the meaning you communicate via the words you use. See my underline in what you said above. You said 'my meaning'.

You are wrong again; the fact that I said my meaning doesn't prove that I am not an hallucination or a dream created unconsciously by your own mind.

I think I have already explained very clearly this point and I will not comment any more about it.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
You are wrong again; the fact that I said my meaning doesn't prove that I am not an hallucination or a dream created unconsciously by your own mind.
I'm not trying to prove anything.

Your meanings serve as evidence consistent with the scientifically formed MDR Hypothesis which tests for: it takes a mind to describe perceptions and use human assigned meanings which make sense to other alike human minds .. further, the notion that such meanings can exist independently from a human mind, is either an untestable belief or; yet another mind model.

Properly formed hypotheses either produce verifying, or refuting evidence ... I therefore, cannot be 'wrong', (no matter how much you seem to want to say that).

You eagerly dismiss and deny the evidence of influence of the human mind over how we perceive and apparently deny the history of the development of mathematics (by myriads of other alike human minds). You then fill in the resulting gap you so create, with a belief in some mathematician type 'God'.

mmarco said:
I think I have already explained very clearly this point and I will not comment any more about it.
Yes .. your commentary is at an end because it appears you don't recognise actual science being performed, nor are you interested in following that process.
You are no 'physicist', as you claimed to be in your opening statement of your OP.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You eagerly dismiss and deny the evidence of influence of the human mind over how we perceive and apparently deny the history of the development of mathematics
Yet you cannot demonstrate that "the development of mathematics" should not read "the discovery or revelation of mathematics". All you have is a belief.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Yet you cannot demonstrate that "the development of mathematics" should not read "the discovery or revelation of mathematics". All you have is a belief.
It makes no difference to the point that there's still objective evidence of human minds at work, when the descriptions of some perception is expressed using words which convey intelligible, commonly held meanings .. does it?

How can changing the meaning (from: 'development of' to: 'discovery or revelation of') provide evidence of anything mind independent? Both are human concepts/perceptions!
Of course one can imagine that 'discovery/revelation of' implies mind independence .. but it took a mind to imagine that it does.

On the main topic of mathematics: the axioms upon which math is based are themselves, beliefs (mind dependent) because they rely on a more fundamental posit of: that they are self-evident truths. (Or in other words, 'truth exists, therefore the axioms are self-evidently true').

Further, you'll find that the 'rational' logic relied soo heavily upon in discussions here at CFs, is also based on the believed existence (mind dependence) of 'truths'. Bertrand Russell summarised them as 'Laws of Thought':

i) The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
ii) The law of non-contradiction (alternatively: the 'law of contradiction'): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
iii) The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'


None of these so-called 'Laws', are testable by science .. and, IMO I might add, are pure antiquated, unadulterated word-salad.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
There comes a point where one has to lighten up .. and have a good ol' laugh about the apparent self-deception we humans have imposed upon ourselves in allowing the belief in a supposed independently existing 'physical' universe, to pervade our thinking to such an extent.

Eventually one comes to the viewpoint that maybe all we are only ever really exploring, is our own mind's perceptions .. of everything.

The major outcome is however, that science at least, gives us a way to provide consistently, independently verifiable, testable meanings which help us in making sense of our observations. Beliefs don't go through that process however, and don't bring us to the same point in our thinking.

The key is keeping track of our beliefs .. and not losing sight of that track.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
How can changing the meaning (from: 'development of' to: 'discovery or revelation of') provide evidence of anything mind independent? Both are human concepts/perceptions!
Really? This is tiresome. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
You remind me of the technical writer who had a sign above his desk that read "Eschew Obfuscation". The difference is that he intended it as a joke.

It's very simple. Pay attention.
If mathematics is a human invention then it cannot be discovered. It is not, until it is invented.
If mathematics is, independent of mind, then it is there whether or not it is ever discovered.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
SelfSim said:
How can changing the meaning (from: 'development of' to: 'discovery or revelation of') provide evidence of anything mind independent? Both are human concepts/perceptions!
If mathematics is a human invention then it cannot be discovered. It is not, until it is invented.
Let me understand what you're intending here .. In these words, you are attempting to demonstrate, (using logic), the difference in meaning between 'invented' and 'discovered', yes?
If so, where is there any evidence of human mind independence in any of that? (Ie: if that was your intention, that is)?
Both 'discovered' and 'development' are what humans do, no?

Ophiolite said:
If mathematics is, independent of mind, then it is there whether or not it is ever discovered.
Where exactly do you mean by 'there' in the above assumption?
And when you answer that question, I shall be able to observe the evidence left behind of how your mind came up with an answer to that question ... which I predict, will be yet another test of the MDR hypothesis passed glowingly .. and producing yet more evidence supporting it .. and none supporting the independence of it, from your mind.

(Your use of logical thinking, is also a demonstration of a type of thinking done by the human mind!)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Both 'discovered' and 'development' are what humans do, no?
Not in any rational universe.
We discover things that already exist.
We develop things that have not existed before.

You asked a patronising question as to whether or not I was familiar with semantics.
I now offer some patronising advice. Demand your course fees back.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Not in any rational universe.
We discover things that already exist.
We develop things that have not existed before.
Yet each of your (underlined) words verify my point .. and work against the notion of something truly existing independently from humans .. Go ahead .. rationalise that!

What's going on in your process description above, (as evidenced by your own words), demonstrates you ('we') exploring your own perceptions of what any ('rational') universe must be, using your mind to do that. Ie: it is a 'rational' mind-model of 'universe' (derived from observations) that you're exploring .. and you're finding out things about that model you were simply initially unaware of, and enhancing it as you go.

I'm still waiting for some objective test however, which specifically excludes the mind's 'fingerprints' (semantic meanings) which would lead to a conclusion of the existence of a truly mind independent universe .. But by all means keep trying though .. (this is entertainment!)
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yet each of your (underlined) words verify my point .. and work against the notion of something truly existing independently from humans .. Go ahead .. rationalise that!

What's going on in your process description above, (as evidenced by your own words), demonstrates you ('we') exploring your own perceptions of what any ('rational') universe must be, using your mind to do that. Ie: it is a 'rational' mind-model of 'universe' (derived from observations) that you're exploring .. and you're finding out things about that model you were simply initially unaware of, and enhancing it as you go.

I'm still waiting for some objective test however, which specifically excludes the mind's 'fingerprints' (semantic meanings) which would lead to a conclusion of the existence of a truly mind independent universe .. But by all means keep trying though .. (this is entertainment!)
I included the word "rational" as an indirect comment upon the apparent lack of rationality in your arguments, not as an essential part of my statement. I apologise for confusing you in that way. Indeed, that entire first sentence should be read as frustrated condemnation of your apparent lack of logic in post after post, where you confuse sophistry with academic precision and can therefore - in the context of this thread - the sentence can be entirely ignored.

I have no interest in demonstrating a "truly independent mind free universe". I adopt a pragmatic approach to the universe. It it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs then hire it for a variety on show on the off chance it's just a great animal impressionist.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I included the word "rational" as an indirect comment upon the apparent lack of rationality in your arguments, not as an essential part of my statement.
The arguments I have presented are entirely consistent with the scientific method (as are any conclusions).
That you don't recognise that, may inform you a little more, about the basis of your judgements of 'rationality'(?)

OphioliteI said:
apologise for confusing you in that way. Indeed, that entire first sentence should be read as frustrated condemnation of your apparent lack of logic in post after post, where you confuse sophistry with academic precision and can therefore - in the context of this thread - the sentence can be entirely ignored.
Ok then .. Done.

Ophiolite said:
I have no interest in demonstrating a "truly independent mind free universe".
Do you consider that as being the same as a 'truly mind independent reality, that exists'?

Ophiolite said:
I adopt a pragmatic approach to the universe. It it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs then hire it for a variety on show on the off chance it's just a great animal impressionist.
Well one certainly needs to have one's ducks lined up, in order to properly contest the scientific merits or otherwise, of questions about 'God's Existence' then, no?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There comes a point where one has to lighten up .. and have a good ol' laugh about the apparent self-deception we humans have imposed upon ourselves in allowing the belief in a supposed independently existing 'physical' universe, to pervade our thinking to such an extent.

Eventually one comes to the viewpoint that maybe all we are only ever really exploring, is our own mind's perceptions .. of everything.

The major outcome is however, that science at least, gives us a way to provide consistently, independently verifiable, testable meanings which help us in making sense of our observations. Beliefs don't go through that process however, and don't bring us to the same point in our thinking.

The key is keeping track of our beliefs .. and not losing sight of that track.
What I find interesting though is that some scientists are willing to allow non-verified ideas that help support their hypothesis. Take ideas like a multiverse or a holographic universe for example. I think as science is moving towards understanding our reality down to the tiniest particles they are realizing that there is more to it than what we see. This is where the classical physics breaks down and the uncertainty principle comes in. This opens the door for scientists to introduce speculative ideas that fit their models but can never be verified.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
What I find interesting though is that some scientists are willing to allow non-verified ideas that help support their hypothesis. Take ideas like a multiverse or a holographic universe for example. I think as science is moving towards understanding our reality down to the tiniest particles they are realizing that there is more to it than what we see. This is where the classical physics breaks down and the uncertainty principle comes in. This opens the door for scientists to introduce speculative ideas that fit their models but can never be verified.
Speculative models which cannot yet be verified; maybe never, but not certainly never.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What I find interesting though is that some scientists are willing to allow non-verified ideas that help support their hypothesis. Take ideas like a multiverse or a holographic universe for example. I think as science is moving towards understanding our reality down to the tiniest particles they are realizing that there is more to it than what we see. This is where the classical physics breaks down and the uncertainty principle comes in. This opens the door for scientists to introduce speculative ideas that fit their models but can never be verified.

I would like to clarify that highly speculative ( and untestable) ideas such as the multiverse etc. have been introduced only to avoid the original interpretation of quantum mechanics, in particular, of the collapse of the wave function. The problem is that the collapse of the wave function made it impossible to conciliate the laws of physics with the idea of an objectively existent universe, which existence and properties are independent from any mind. The point is that, all these speculative interpretations are based on the same abstract mathematical models, which take us back to my initial argument.

I would like to report some quotations:

Einstein:
“How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?”

Heisemberg: “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however. Atoms are not things.”

Heisemberg: “The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
What I find interesting though is that some scientists are willing to allow non-verified ideas that help support their hypothesis. Take ideas like a multiverse or a holographic universe for example. I think as science is moving towards understanding our reality down to the tiniest particles they are realizing that there is more to it than what we see. This is where the classical physics breaks down and the uncertainty principle comes in. This opens the door for scientists to introduce speculative ideas that fit their models but can never be verified.
The breakdown of classical physics and the uncertainty principle are related to quantum mechanics, and are (and have been) empirically verified many times. The UP is a feature of wave mechanics.

The argument about speculative and unverifiable and/or unfalsifiable hypotheses is something else entirely.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Heisemberg: “The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
I'm not sure, in fact I'm quite uncertain about it, but shouldn't Heisenberg be spelt with an N, not an M. Now don't just collapse in shock, or wave this off with a catty comment like Schrodinger, tell us what your position is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I would like to clarify that highly speculative ( and untestable) ideas such as the multiverse etc. have been introduced only to avoid the original interpretation of quantum mechanics, in particular, of the collapse of the wave function. The problem is that the collapse of the wave function made it impossible to conciliate the laws of physics with the idea of an objectively existent universe, which existence and properties are independent from any mind.
This is not correct - there are numerous interpretations that involve wave function collapse that are independent of the presence or influence of any mind (known as 'Objective Collapse' models). The mainstream abandoned conscious collapse interpretations because they raised too many problems - other interpretations were simpler and less problematic. 'Many Worlds' is the simplest of all, involving no ad-hoc wave function collapse, but the only the QM formalism (the unitary evolution of the wave function according to the Schrodinger equation).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.