The inevitability of everlasting experience

SelfSim said:

.. and this tells me you believe in the existence of a 'true' mind independent reality (maybe even your worldview?) .. which is simply yet another human belief, worthy only of being tossed on the enormous pile of all other impractical, inconsistent beliefs humans have come up with. Science tests its ideas .. with beliefs being entirely optional and completely irrelevant for the practical purpose of distinguishing objective reality.

Click to expand...

I simply meant that as an order of logic reality already exists before the mind that studies it. I'm not saying the mind is not part of the reality it studies (if that's what you mean). Here's the statement:

On the contrary, reality establishes science since reality existed before science.

​

SelfSim said:

There is no 'box' with things 'outside' it or 'inside' it unless one chooses to just simply believe that.
However, there is demonstrably active, perceiving minds at play, which leave abundant objective evidence behind .. all one has to do, is look at it.

Click to expand...

If you're saying the box is an allegory, I agree.

childeye 2 said:

On the contrary, reality establishes science since reality existed before science.

Click to expand...

Wait, I thought we were talking about the word "reality". Many of us find that science is the best method for defining the content that word represents. (Others prefer what they claim is divine revelation).

durangodawood said:

Wait, I thought we were talking about the word "reality".

Click to expand...

The problem of semantical confusion on the thread is what I set out to address. The mind easily conflates the substance of reality with the term. For the purpose of clarity, the true dichotomy of reality/unreality can be used objectively to reason upon so as to stay objective. The mind cannot conflate the term with the substance when reality/unreality is applied.

durangodawood said:

Many of us find that science is the best method for defining the content that word represents. (Others prefer what they claim is divine revelation).

Click to expand...

Well said. Two approaches and perspectives for determining what reality means and is. One reasons upon theism and one reasons on scientific method. Scientific method does not recognize any thing as objective reality until proven, which theism claims is eventually impossible to do because of the limitations presented by the term Eternal (it's meaning). All the terms morph accordingly.

childeye 2 said:

I simply meant that as an order of logic reality already exists before the mind that studies it.

Click to expand...

But isn't the mind confined to studying only that which exists within the mind itself?

Some serious map/territory problems with a word like "reality".

I can fold up the map.... so surely I can fold up the continent, right?

childeye 2 said:

.., reality establishes science since reality existed before science.

Click to expand...

Logic cannot establish truths like the one you're proposing there .. pure and simple.

When you personally talk about reality, including what is going on in your life, or what matter is made of, or the laws of physics, or how did humans evolve, or what is the difference between right and wrong, or what gets you out of bed in the morning, are you talking about that reality thing which you believe in, (which existed before science), or merely science's model of reality, which you claim came after it?
So I ask: 'What actually exists there? Do you exist?' .. and if so, does that then logically require that you be some kind of real thing, (in the reality which existed before science), that you just believe in, or science's reality which can actually be demonstrated?

Logical arguments are one thing .. but there is no need for arguments once one sees the role beliefs play .. especially when it comes down to what one means, when one invokes concepts of reality.

Walking Contradiction said:

But isn't the mind confined to studying only that which exists within the mind itself?

Click to expand...

In the context you proceed from, the mind is gathering and processing information that before wasn't there. See this dichotomy knowledge/ignorance.

However, the question posed presents a semantical problem. It could be taken to be asking whether we are confined to studying only what's in the mind with the mind (the mind studying itself). If that's what you mean, then yes, since there is a such thing as know thyself (I doubt you mean that).

But if that's not what you mean, then the term studying is being applied to something/somebody outside of the mind, which the mind was made aware of, like a rock or a tree or another person. In such an instance, I'd say the studying part is definitely happening in the mind, but what is being studied is outside the mind.

childeye 2 said:

But if that's not what you mean, then the term studying is being applied to something/somebody outside of the mind, which the mind was made aware of, like a rock or a tree or another person. In such an instance, I'd say the studying part is definitely happening in the mind, but what is being studied is outside the mind.

Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly your argument is that the mind is constantly accruing new information, and it can only do this by accessing an independent source of information that exists outside of itself.

But is such an independent source of information actually necessary?

For example, let's imagine that I'm living in a computer simulation where there's no external reality at all, only an algorithm who's singular function is to ensure that the past, present and future are always consistent with each other. In such a case there would be no need of an external reality at all, only a self-emerging set of laws born out of the simple rule that the present must always be consistent with the past. One simple rule from which everything else emerges.

But then again, do we even need the algorithm? What if we simply live in a reality in which coherency emerges all on it's own, and we experience that coherency as consciousness. In that case we don't need an external reality, or even an algorithm, because coherency/consciousness will emerge all on its own, replete with an accompanying reality, and the laws and intricacies thereof.

Sort of like a constantly collapsing wave function born out of the fact that the present will always be consistent with the past. It may look as though you need an external reality from which to draw information, but you really don't.

I'm not saying that it's true, but I'm not saying that it's not either.

childeye 2 said:

In the context you proceed from, the mind is gathering and processing information that before wasn't there.

Click to expand...

'Gathering and processing information' is demonstrably a model developed by a human mind.
The idea of using those words together, to create a concept of 'things' somehow existing independently from the mind which demonstrably conceived those models, is nonsensical, (unless that's just yet another belief you hold).

Oh .. and the source of the information there, is completely irrelevant, for the purpose of our minds making sense of those models/perceptions.

childeye 2 said:

.. But if that's not what you mean, then the term studying is being applied to something/somebody outside of the mind, which the mind was made aware of, like a rock or a tree or another person. In such an instance, I'd say the studying part is definitely happening in the mind, but what is being studied is outside the mind.

Click to expand...

'A rock' or 'a tree' are both also mind models (testable ones) .. ie: I know what you mean when you use those words, but it takes my mind to do that.
There's no evidence of anything existing independently from a human mind there, whatsoever .. one might just say the existence of 'things' we call rocks and trees, independently from the mind's models of rock and trees, is all just made up, (or a belief, or fiction) .. with no practical consequences as a result of doing that. Its just a superfluous add-on that serves no practical purpose.

SelfSim said:

Logic cannot establish truths like the one you're proposing there .. pure and simple.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. I meant that objectively the Truth is already established, and we just learn it. Hence logically one fact will link to another in the reality we share. Therefore, to declare objectively that ignorance precedes knowledge is an observation, not a proposition. The logic proceeds that since knowledge and ignorance of what is known and unknown about reality, both exist in reality, therefore the Truth is already established, and we just learn it.

In view of these facts, all I can logically see you intimating is how we only believe it when we see it.

SelfSim said:

When you personally talk about reality, including what is going on in your life, or what matter is made of, or the laws of physics, or how did humans evolve, or what is the difference between right and wrong, or what gets you out of bed in the morning, are you talking about that reality thing which you believe in, (which existed before science), or merely science's model of reality, which you claim came after it?

Click to expand...

I appreciate the question. First let me correct something you think I said for which I offer this rephrase: The scientific modeling itself occurs in the same reality after observing what happens in reality. It's a moment or moments of observation, analysis and realization.

Having said that, the question presents some other issues for me. The first one is that when you say "science's model", I picture scientists working to form a working model, and I would never think to consider that a scientific theory has my personal life in mind. And the second one is that when I see the term 'believe' in your question it implies a dichotomy of trust/distrust.

So objectively speaking and with this dichotomy in mind, when I talk about reality, I'm talking about the only reality there is to trust/distrust in.

SelfSim said:

So I ask: 'What actually exists there? Do you exist?' ..

Click to expand...

This is asking for my subjective view and the answer is therefore obviously yes since I'm here in reality answering this question.

SelfSim said:

and if so, does that then logically require that you be some kind of real thing, (in the reality which existed before science), that you just believe in, or science's reality which can actually be demonstrated?

Click to expand...

There are more semantical issues in this question which is understandable and even to be expected. The "reality which existed before science" is for me a personal moment of observation in which I play a part in as the observer, and as I said earlier, I don't stop to think any group of scientists have my personal life in mind.

SelfSim said:

Logical arguments are one thing .. but there is no need for arguments once one sees the role beliefs play .. especially when it comes down to what one means, when one invokes concepts of reality.

Click to expand...

I believe/trust that we need to stay objective and let the Truth dictate to us what is and what isn't. Like I said before, objectively speaking they're not my positives or protons.

Walking Contradiction said:

So if I understand you correctly your argument is that the mind is constantly accruing new information, and it can only do this by accessing an independent source of information that exists outside of itself.

Click to expand...

I think that's accurate although the term 'constantly' has some exceptions. Dementia for example.

Walking Contradiction said:

But is such an independent source of information actually necessary?

For example, let's imagine that I'm living in a computer simulation where there's no external reality at all, only an algorithm who's singular function is to ensure that the past, present and future are always consistent with each other. In such a case there would be no need of an external reality at all, only a self-emerging set of laws born out of the simple rule that the present must always be consistent with the past. One simple rule from which everything else emerges.

But then again, do we even need the algorithm? What if we simply live in a reality in which coherency emerges all on it's own, and we experience that coherency as consciousness. In that case we don't need an external reality, or even an algorithm, because coherency/consciousness will emerge all on its own, replete with an accompanying reality, and the laws and intricacies thereof.

Sort of like a constantly collapsing wave function born out of the fact that the present will always be consistent with the past. It may look as though you need an external reality from which to draw information, but you really don't.

I'm not saying that it's true, but I'm not saying that it's not either.

Click to expand...

I get that you're theorizing, so please consider that when someone says to me "what IF it were this way" it becomes a little more than rhetorical wherefore my initial response is usually "Then that's how it would be". But I'm willing to take a little time to critique your thoughts on these matters for whatever it's worth.

You start out with a simulation which requires something outside us being simulated. The algorithm therefore implies a sense of purpose, a question being asked or a useful function to perform. An algorithm that creates itself however is counterintuitive in that regard. It would be a random occurrence that just so happens to be for no purpose; hence I see a devaluation from the first theory. Finally, when you say we wouldn't need an external reality it looks to me like that is utterly contradicted by saying replete with an accompanying reality. People interact so there's more than one mind at work in knowing someone else whose experiences are different. However, I do see reality as all interconnected and I see my mind as an evolving person (if that's what you mean).

SelfSim said:

'Gathering and processing information' is demonstrably a model developed by a human mind.
The idea of using those words together, to create a concept of 'things' somehow existing independently from the mind which demonstrably conceived those models, is nonsensical, (unless that's just yet another belief you hold).

Oh .. and the source of the information there, is completely irrelevant, for the purpose of our minds making sense of those models/perceptions.

'A rock' or 'a tree' are both also mind models (testable ones) .. ie: I know what you mean when you use those words, but it takes my mind to do that.
There's no evidence of anything existing independently from a human mind there, whatsoever .. one might just say the existence of 'things' we call rocks and trees, independently from the mind's models of rock and trees, is all just made up, (or a belief, or fiction) .. with no practical consequences as a result of doing that. Its just a superfluous add-on that serves no practical purpose.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say. If I touch a hot stove, I learn that it burns. The ignorance to touch a hot stove was then informed and I'm no longer ignorant. Reality taught me something, and in reality, I learned something. Hence information is energy that transforms me. I'm here reading your post attempting to discern your expression of your thoughts and they are you in that sense, but you are not conceived nor fiction forming for no reason in my mind.

childeye 2 said:

I'm not sure what you mean. I meant that objectively the Truth is already established, and we just learn it. Hence logically one fact will link to another in the reality we share. Therefore, to declare objectively that ignorance precedes knowledge is an observation, not a proposition. The logic proceeds that since knowledge and ignorance of what is known and unknown about reality, both exist in reality, therefore the Truth is already established, and we just learn it.

Click to expand...

That's perfectly circular argument starting with an assumed posit of 'the Truth is already established' and ending up in exactly the same place:
'therefore the Truth is already established, and we just learn it'. Nothing new has been learned there at all.
I am unmoved by the circularity of the argument, therefore: logic cannot establish truths .. only science can do that via its testing.

If we were to build a human mind from scratch, the first thing it knows is testing ('trial and error'). Logic then comes along to make sense of the results.

childeye 2 said:

In view of these facts, all I can logically see you intimating is a subjective view of how we only believe it when we see it.

Click to expand...

Observation is the basis of scientific thinking. Believing in whatever is observed, is purely optional and the effects of doing so, are deliberately neutralised at every stage, in order to construct a belief-free meaning of objective reality. (Fyi: whenever I use the term 'objective', I mean derived via the scientific method .. and not the notoriously ambiguous dictionary definitions of the term .. which I think(?) might be how you're using it?)
That you then might go on thinking that observations there are still 'subjective', (using your meaning of that word), is of no concern .. we have no consistent choice other than to use our own minds in doing that. All views are centred on making sense to our minds .. and not making sense to some demonstrably imagined existence of something which truly exists independently from our minds.

childeye 2 said:

I appreciate the question. First let me correct something you think I said for which I offer this rephrase: The scientific modeling itself occurs in the same reality after observing what happens in reality. It's a moment or moments of observation and analysis.

Click to expand...

I understand your viewpoint .. its coming from the belief in a mind independent reality, but that contradicts the observations I make which are all consistent with the notion that everyone is using their minds whenever they report their observations. The source of those observations, is only relevant to the belief in the existence of some mind independent reality, which is demonstrably a belief, where 'a belief' (from an operational (objectively) testable viewpoint can be defined as:
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. (Both conditions must be met).

Fyi (an aside): an operational definition of 'knowing' is:
The odds a person would give on being right (like, "95% certain"), where the odds can be deemed as correct, if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. (If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they know).

Note this means we would generally never assess our odds as 100% (not if we wish to break even in the long run), so we do not use the notorious standard that to "know" something, it must always end up being 'true'. (Philosophers arrived at "justified true belief" as their attempt at a definition they can use in philosophy, but to me that's a classic example of what they'd like to mean rather than what they really mean-- it's a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use the word at all).

childeye 2 said:

Having said that, the question presents some other issues for me. The first one is that when you say "science's model", I picture scientists working to form a working model, and I would never think to consider that a scientific theory has my personal life in mind. And the second one is that when I see the term 'believe' in your question it implies a dichotomy of trust/distrust. So objectively speaking and with this dichotomy in mind, when I talk about reality, I'm talking about the only reality there is to trust/distrust in.

Click to expand...

I've attempted to clarify how I'm using the term 'belief' above. (The basics are important, IMHO).

childeye 2 said:

This is asking for my subjective view and the answer is therefore obviously yes sine I'm here answering this question.

There are more semantical issues in this question which is understandable and even to be expected. The "reality which existed before science" is for me a personal moment of observation in which I play a part in as the observer, and as I said earlier, I don't stop to think any group of scientists have my personal life in mind.

Click to expand...

Of course they don't .. but you do .. and I'd assert that everyone is capable of thinking scientifically .. (especially when one is in a Physical Sciences forum).

childeye 2 said:

I believe/trust that we need to stay objective and let the Truth dictate to us what is and what isn't. Like I said before, objectively speaking they're not my positives or protons.

Click to expand...

Ahh .. but protons are .. especially when you believe you are part of their reality too, no(?)

childeye 2 said:

I'm sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say. If I touch a hot stove, I learn that it burns.

Click to expand...

Yes! And you somehow don't even need to learn it that particular way .. because you've likely also learned that via language meanings, when you were very young too, ie: that the concept of 'touching a hot stove' means 'Yikes! .. Ouch! .. Pain!.. Burning!, etc' .. I get it too, from the in-common meanings you communicated right there .. and the pain you convey may also be real because of that.
No evidence for, (or any need for), beliefs in the existence of some sort of mind independent reality in any of that.

childeye 2 said:

The ignorance to touch a hot stove was then informed and I'm no longer ignorant. Reality taught me something, and in reality, I learned something.

Click to expand...

Your mind refreshed your knowledge with those meanings.
No need for believed-in notions coming from some believed-in mind independent reality there, at all.

childeye 2 said:

Hence information is energy.

Click to expand...

Perhaps .. That's not like some kind of 'truth' though .. (ie: unless one chooses to believe that it is .. where 'is' there, invokes a meaning we both share for reality).

childeye 2 said:

I'm here reading your post attempting to discern your expression of your thoughts and they are you in that sense, but you are not conceived nor fiction forming for no reason in my mind.

Click to expand...

I am forming in your mind because I'm demonstrably conveying meanings via words .. (other readers can see that for themselves, too).
I see no need to invoke other concepts (like information/energy) to explain what's going on there.

childeye 2 said:

You start out with a simulation which requires something outside us being simulated.

Click to expand...

The simulation was simply to point out that what you perceive as being "physically real" need not have any real physical existence at all.

childeye 2 said:

The algorithm therefore implies a sense of purpose, a question being asked or a useful function to perform.

Click to expand...

The algorithm was simply to point out that the underlying cause may have no greater "purpose" than to eliminate contradictions and paradoxes. Beyond that it need have no greater "purpose" at all. And even that need not be by intent, but may be nothing more than a naturally occurring consequence of the nature of reality itself. No designer, purpose, nor creator required, just a source that by its very nature eliminates contradictions and paradoxes.

childeye 2 said:

An algorithm that creates itself however is counterintuitive in that regard.

Click to expand...

But is it really all that counterintuitive?

Richard Feynman used to explain why light always travels in a straight line by explaining that light is a wave, and as such it actually takes every possible path from the source to the observer. But we never see the other paths because they destructively interfere with each other. It's like trying to make a wave that's both up and down at the same time, it simply isn't possible. So to make light that travels in a straight line there's no need for any fancy algorithm, just an underlying source that naturally eliminates contradictions.

But the thing is that if you have a source that by its very nature eliminates contradictions, then what's left, must by necessity be coherent. And if this source can create light that travels in a straight line, then what else can it create simply by eliminating what's not possible and leaving only what is possible?

So it would seem as though you really don't need a "purpose" or an "algorithm", all you need is a source that by its very nature eliminates contradictions, and in the process leaves only what's coherent.

Then the question becomes how would that coherency manifest itself? As stars, and planets, and things, and people. Or simply as a mind which perceives itself to be surrounded by such things? Because otherwise its very existence isn't coherent.

Walking Contradiction said:

.. The algorithm was simply to point out that the underlying cause may have no greater "purpose" than to eliminate contradictions and paradoxes.
...
But the thing is that if you have a source that by its very nature eliminates contradictions,

Click to expand...

Objective evidence demonstrates that a perpetually seeking-to-make-sense human mind eliminates contradictions and paradoxes.
There's no need for some 'external coherent source' there, at all(?)
We observably all share in a common type of mind (ie: human). So there's no surprise that we all seek to make sense of the same kinds of perceptions our minds form. No need for external source references in any of that.

Chriliman said:

What is ‘objective evidence’, if not an ‘external source’?

I can see both of those terms representing the same thing, which is some real correlation and coherence between what we perceive in the mind and what actually is in reality.

Click to expand...

All right, let's do the web search thing looking for a definition. Here are some tidbits from a web search on the adjective "objective." It's actually quite a mess-- what you see is people bending over so far backward to try to interpret "objectivity" in a mind-independent way that the meanings they intend are clearly internally inconsistent. Here are just a few examples that positively squirm in their own inconsistencies:

1) "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts".

So here, we see that "objective" is supposed to be an attitude we have about facts. So what it is trying to say is that "facts are objective", but it recognizes that this only passes the buck to the definition of what constitutes a "fact." To address that obvious problem, the definition stresses the relation of the mind to the fact, and tries to find objectivity in what is absent from that relationship-- in short, "feelings or opinions", things we normally associate with mind dependence. However, the definition is still explicitly referring to the relationship that a mind has with the facts, because how else are you going to determine if that mind was involving itself in feelings or opinions, unless you consider the functioning of that mind? Hence, in trying to remove the role of the mind in the definition of objectivity, the definition gives the mind a specific role. Try defining objectivity without reference to a mind at all, and this will become even clearer.

2) "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book."

This shows the same misguided effort. Here, we have that objectivity is about dealing with things "external to the mind", but notice the very first word: "intent". I wonder what it is that they are imagining has the "intention" of dealing with things external to the mind-- a rock?

3) "of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Here we see the same phenomenon again, though raised to a new level. We actually have in the same sentence that the object or part of an object should be "independent of thought", yet also be something that "can be known." Seriously? It can be known, in a way that is independent of knowing? Observed, in a way that is independent of the observer? That's just rich, I can't wait for them to tell me how to set up an experiment that establishes an observation that is independent of the observer! It really shows how badly people trip over themselves when they just try way too hard to maintain belief in mind independent reality in situations where it simply doesn't make any sense.