Page 332 of 447 FirstFirst ... 232282322330331332333334342382432 ... LastLast
Results 9,931 to 9,960 of 13398

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #9931
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    or to put this in one final fashion: If we take reality to mean one of these worlds, as each forms a different meaning to the word, which one is science most concerned with, and thus which one is the most scientific meaning?

    It seems obvious to me, that we would have to say that as modern science seeks to limit itself to world 3, although it acknowledges and seeks to understand the demonstrable roles that world 2 and world 1 play upon this reality, in a meaningful scientific sense it has to refer to world 3.

    who knows where evolution of the method may take us though, tomorrow we may find reason to change our minds about all of this and shift our process such that a different world best matches. This is merely a statement from logic about what science is currently working with from its own framework. It steps outside of the philosophy of world 1's actual nature, it steps outside of our personal world 2 considerations of what the nature of world 1 actually is therefore

    ETA: Please note that I haven't had to shed one shred of my realism to accept this point, I don;t have to be an anti-realist. I just have to see that what the science is describing is very much less concerned with what actually is than what works objectively for us.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2015-Dec-29 at 02:25 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  2. #9932
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,367
    Wow, has this thread grown philosophical and a flood of text. My definition of reality, is that which is outside of our body and senses/mind, whether we understand it correctly or not. Proof? How could we exist if it (reality, the way I defined it) were not there?

  3. #9933
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    I could play the advocate matey, but as you well know I agree philosophically. The issue here isn;t whether or not world 1 (the reality you speak of) actually exists in the sense of realism, people can believe whatever they want here as far as I am concerned. Its still amazingly for me, about whether or not one can from the current method and processes of science, assert that this is a scientific model, which you have previously agreed it is not, its just there regardless.

    Philosophically I think the major shift has been language, as we all respect Popper and Len brought up his views on the matter, its shifted the way we are tyalking about it, into terms we can all relate back to.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2015-Dec-29 at 03:52 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  4. #9934
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    As a slight aside, the issue for the group here comes down to this. If you assert that realism is a mandatory part of science or worse a particular form of realism, you are by this very nature asserting that someone who does accept the models of science, but doesn;t agree with your interpretation cannot actually be scientific. Rather than realising that if you cannot through the standard of science actually seperate the two, holding either is in fact none scientific, regardless of your feelings on the matter, but its not wrong either. The difference is that the MDR view as presented, that is not idealism, makes no claims beyond the models themselves and their matching up to their direct basis, that is our observation,, it doesn;t knock such conepts it simply states they have a different flavour. The part of your thoughts which is none scientifiic is in the assertion that things which science cannot answer are the truth, this doesn;t make you wrong it simply makes it a truth that matters to you personally and not necessarilly to anyone else, currently..

    for me personally the argument over the various forms of realism and various forms of idealism are no different to the arguments between the Roman Catholics and Protestants over interpretations of the bible. What needs to be considered is just why science can step beyond this!
    Last edited by malaidas; 2015-Dec-29 at 04:25 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  5. #9935
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,367
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    I could play the advocate matey, but as you well know I agree philosophically. The issue here isn;t whether or not world 1 (the reality you speak of) actually exists in the sense of realism, people can believe whatever they want here as far as I am concerned. Its still amazingly for me, about whether or not one can from the current method and processes of science, assert that this is a scientific model, which you have previously agreed it is not, its just there regardless.

    Philosophically I think the major shift has been language, as we all respect Popper and Len brought up his views on the matter, its shifted the way we are tyalking about it, into terms we can all relate back to.
    But I have not defined "reality", other than saying something else is out there beyond my senses/body/mind. Has nothing to do with science, just plain common sense. There is no alternative. It is defacto true.

  6. #9936
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,223
    I would basically agree but say the provable part is that there is something there which is not subject to our thoughts about it, whatever that may be. The problem is this that last statement puts it beyond science becuase science deals only with our models of stuff we do know., and gtestable hypothesis about that which we dont;

    Here is the problem we can't without using some pragmatism of how to make sense, actually make sense. For instance one viewpoint could take that the simplest universe is one that contains only me, I disagree with this viewpoint in terms of the evidence for reasons oft given but hey I don;t know, it just seems senseless to see it this way personally.

    so long as we keep this outside of science our agreement is a matter of degrees to which we can assert something to be part of the MIR we both hold to be there. What is definetely true is that we view a world respectively upon which we can draw intersubjective agreement and yes the world I percieve just is, I cant change that except through certain very definitely contrained fashions.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2015-Dec-29 at 05:38 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  7. #9937
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    Hi gzhpcu , I'll go along with your view. Well said, simple and true.

  8. #9938
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    sure, which is where pragmatism comes into play again here, rather than talking about knowledge in terms of something we can know for 100% certain we can talk about confidence.
    If we talk about confidence then how does this make MIR irrelevant? The argument against the relevance of MIR seems to be that it is irrelevant because we cannot be 100% confident of any statement about its properties. However, you say that we can't be 100% confident about any statement based on empirical observation. So why is a statement based on empirical observation relevant to science?

    As I interpret your examples, the lack of 100% confidence in empirical statements comes from the doubt that they live up to the generality that they claim. For example, Newtons law (in your interpretation) claims to be true at arbitrary times as well as for arbitrary places, etc. (e.g.. there won't be a special time and corner of the laboratory where it fails badly). In the last paragraph you deal with the question of whether we may even doubt our empirical tests. You point out that accepting our own observations as "real" requires the belief that they are.

    We should consider whether the concept of MIR necessarily implies that there are any general laws that govern it. One concept of MIR is that it is simply a collection of "real" events that need have no pattern or regularity to them. A different conception of MIR is that it consists of "real" things whose behaviors are governed by "real" laws (taking "laws" to be assertions that are general statements).


    If "knowing" is expressed in terms of an amount of "doubt" then (I think) this acknowledges that "knowing" involves emotion because "doubt" is a feeling. Discussing science will involve discussing emotions. (I'm not saying that to contradict your picture. If a discussion of science admits it is talking about limitations of the "human condition", it certainly should include a discussion of emotions.)

  9. #9939
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    I would basically agree but say the provable part is that there is something there which is not subject to our thoughts about it, whatever that may be. The problem is this that last statement puts it beyond science becuase science deals only with our models of stuff we do know., and gtestable hypothesis about that which we dont;


    If we begin with a "wishy-washy" view of reality that asserts doubt or ambiguity prevails about everything and then start to advocate empirical testing then audience has the right to say "Whoa! You say there is doubt and ambiguity about everything? - and now you're claiming you can do empirical testing?".


    A theory that proceeds from uncertainty about everything to advocacy of empirical testing needs a way to tone down the doubt and ambiguity when it starts to talk about empirical testing. Philosophically, I think this argument is hard or impossible to make unless there is some "objective" definition of what doubt and ambiguity are. If doubt and ambiguity are human emotions then the discussion revolves around human behavior. However, psychologically, I think it is easy to begin with doubt and then argue for empiricism because human minds can hold opinions that are not logically consistent. There are minds who can hold the thoughts "I know I can do objective scientific tests" and "Religion is unproven because it claims certainty and we can't be certain about anything". The thought that we can't be certain about anything can be put in one corner of the mind and the thought that "I know I can do empirical tests" can be put in another corner.

  10. #9940
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    But it would of course be wrong to claim that implies any world 3 thing is "mind independent", nor does Popper ever say any such thing. He merely said world 3 ideas are real, in the sense that they can have real effects-- but never without minds!

    So, it is demonstrably untrue that anything in world 3 is mind independent, and it simply does not follow logically that it must be "mind independent" simply because it does not depend on a particular mind. This is simply because "mind dependence" never claimed anything required a particular mind, it merely asserted that different minds could mean different things by it. For example, Popper mentions "music." Would he hold that music is "mind independent", simply because music does not depend on a particular mind? Of course not, music is very clearly mind dependent, even if one can talk about music that is "objectively good." There's no way the phrase "objectively good music" means anything if there are no minds to give it meaning! That's mind dependence.

    Taking a scientific example, Popper makes the point that relativity is more than just Einstein's thoughts about it, but that doesn't make it mind independent. If ten different theorists have 11 different ideas of what relativity is really saying (and they do, if you dig deep enough), that suffices to meet the criterion of mind dependence, as described here. It simply means our minds leave their mark on what we mean when we talk about relativity, and when we talk about a reality that respects relativity-- whatever we mean by that! It is easy to see that what I'm saying here tests out well, simply go over to ATM for an hour.
    How exactly the world does not create real effects without minds? Everything that happens now it happens without any human minds involvement without anyone being conscious and observing them, from creating fusions inside the stars, the creation of stars, planets and space dusts and everything else-it does not involve any human minds whatsoever.
    Last edited by Lobo; 2015-Dec-29 at 08:20 PM.

  11. #9941
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    If you assert that realism is a mandatory part of science or worse a particular form of realism, you are by this very nature asserting that someone who does accept the models of science, but doesn;t agree with your interpretation cannot actually be scientific. Rather than realising that if you cannot through the standard of science actually seperate the two, holding either is in fact none scientific, regardless of your feelings on the matter, but its not wrong either.
    You are postulating that there is something called "science" that can be defined without reference to Realism. Will this assumption pass a close inspection?

    A typical model of science is that a person thinks of a model, which I'll call "M1" and he tests it. However, we see exchanges in this thread matching the following pattern:
    Person1 describes his model M1. Person2 objects to the model by asserting "You're model says that .... [something ridiculous]". Person1 counters with the claim "My model does not say that at all." So we have a situation where person1 thinks his model is M1 and person2 think's person1's model is a different model, M2. So which opinion is correct?

    It's natural to say that person1 is correct about his model being M1 and person2 is wrong about it being M2 because person1 "knows" what his own model is. However, does this viewpoint set up person1's assertion about his model as being true, independently of what other minds think about it? Is person1's model really M1 and not really M2 ?

    There are similar problems in trying to maintain anti-Realism while making assertions about "Minds" or a "consensus of Minds". Are there "really" Minds. Does a consensus of Minds "really" exist? The only consistent anti-Realistic viewpoint that I could imagine would begin each of its assertions with "What I'm about is say is not really true, but ...."

    If we want to be agnostic about Realism, we can begin each statement with "What I'm about to say might not really be true, but ...".

    I think your own viewpoint is agnostic about Realism in a technical way. You think there might or might not "really" be Realism. You are attempting to define a property called "scientific" and argue that Realism is not needed in order to do things that are "scientific". You are attempting to do this without assuming that any assertion you make is "really" true. I don't understand how you intend to accomplish this. When you describe what you are doing, it seems to me that you always introduce assertions and assumptions about how some particular things 'really" are.

  12. #9942
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    But I have not defined "reality", other than saying something else is out there beyond my senses/body/mind. Has nothing to do with science, just plain common sense. There is no alternative. It is defacto true.
    You're right, it has nothing to do with science, it's exactly the same as religious belief. You don't need to test it in any fashion, in fact you can't test it, it all depends on personal belief.

    And isn't in an empirical sense reality at all as it can't be shared and compared in a systematic fashion. Reality in scientific terms depends on something that can be acted upon in a coherent process. And that requires minds operating in an agreed upon matrix.

    But seeing as how this has been pointed out to you and others who keep coming back to this exact same position over literally thousands of posts, then it's pointless to think you'll ever understand this.

  13. #9943
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,367
    Quote Originally Posted by starcanuck64 View Post
    But seeing as how this has been pointed out to you and others who keep coming back to this exact same position over literally thousands of posts, then it's pointless to think you'll ever understand this.
    Do you think repeating something over and over makes it right? I could say the same thing to you.

  14. #9944
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Do you think repeating something over and over makes it right? I could say the same thing to you.
    You have...repeatedly.

    That doesn't change the fact that this thread is trying to define something that is indefinable because it relies completely on personal viewpoint.

    But that hasn't stopped some people demanding they understand "reality" and often doing so in some quite offensive ways.

  15. #9945
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,367
    Quote Originally Posted by starcanuck64 View Post
    You have...repeatedly.

    That doesn't change the fact that this thread is trying to define something that is indefinable because it relies completely on personal viewpoint.
    But you state "something that is indefinable"... if that isn't reality, what is it?

  16. #9946
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,172
    Quote Originally Posted by starcanuck64 View Post
    it has nothing to do with science, it's exactly the same as religious belief.
    The necessary truths of philosophy are different from religious belief, except in the sense that both provide foundational axioms for thinking.

    Religious beliefs emerged from long cultural tradition grounded in pre-scientific culture, and often contain factual errors due to reluctance to align their claims with scientific observation.

    Necessary truths, such as the real existence of the universe, are conditions of experience, and can achieve some logical rigor through alignment with scientific knowledge. It is a simple logical argument that scientific experience would be impossible if the universe did not in fact exist independently of our minds. This is despite the apparent fact that everything specific that we can say about the universe is in some sense mind-dependent due to the linguistic structure of mentation. It is absurd to say that MDR would work even if the universe did not exist.

  17. #9947
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    The necessary truths of philosophy are different from religious belief, except in the sense that both provide foundational axioms for thinking.

    Religious beliefs emerged from long cultural tradition grounded in pre-scientific culture, and often contain factual errors due to reluctance to align their claims with scientific observation.

    Necessary truths, such as the real existence of the universe, are conditions of experience, and can achieve some logical rigor through alignment with scientific knowledge. It is a simple logical argument that scientific experience would be impossible if the universe did not in fact exist independently of our minds. This is despite the apparent fact that everything specific that we can say about the universe is in some sense mind-dependent due to the linguistic structure of mentation. It is absurd to say that MDR would work even if the universe did not exist.
    There do need to be some assumptions made to create a context to build on, that I can agree with.

    The problem I have is trying to define in concrete terms something that we have no real access to, to progress science needs information on which to act which I think can be impeded by creating limiting assumptions. It's a very fine line that is hard to define as can be seen with how long this topic has been "discussed" here.

  18. #9948
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,778
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Wow, has this thread grown philosophical and a flood of text. My definition of reality, is that which is outside of our body and senses/mind, whether we understand it correctly or not.
    That's a classic example of a model.
    Proof? How could we exist if it (reality, the way I defined it) were not there?
    One doesn't prove models, one tests them. But you have not told us your model for "exists". When you do that, you will answer your own question.

  19. #9949
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    How exactly the world does not create real effects without minds?
    I would need a mind to understand what you are asking. And a different mind from mine would understand what you are asking in a very different way, and answer it in a very different way. This is the mind dependence I'm talking about. It's perfectly observable, and it's kind of silly to deny what is so easily observed. Yet, true believers do that all the time, belief trumps observation. That's why it is not particularly conducive to good science.

  20. #9950
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    But you state "something that is indefinable"... if that isn't reality, what is it?
    It's a individual process that each mind undergoes to place into context information received. And no two minds process exactly the same information in exactly the same way, so discussing some separate and fixed "reality" is pointless.

    Reality isn't occurring outside of our thoughts, it's entirely constructed by them. That doesn't mean we create the information needed to create a model of reality, just that minds are essential to process information to build a model we call "reality". There is no context in which to place a reality outside of this.

    In the end reality is an ongoing and dynamic process, not a fixed and static physical property. The deeper we look the more amorphous "reality" becomes.

  21. #9951
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,778
    Perhaps a good analogy is with the concept of "art." Most people have some idea what that word means, just as most people have some idea what "reality" means. Yet with "art", it is much more obvious that the meaning depends on the mind involved. This does not mean art is "all in the mind", because if it were, anyone with a mind could do great art. That is apparently not true-- there is something about certain select minds that make them much better at creating great art, and there is something about certain select "geniuses" that make them much better at doing great science. Popper holds that both great art, and great science, are forms of objective reality, and they clearly depend on the mind doing them and interpreting them. Popper can certainly make the point that a great work of art can mean things to people who look upon it that were not originally intended by the artist, and were not "put into it" by the artist, just as a great scientific model "of reality" can have unintended consequences. But what is true, simply by observation, is that for people to get more out of some art than was put into it, they need a mind, and to see the unintended consequences of a theory, they again need a mind. This is the mind dependence, whenever a mind is needed to make sense of something, and that mind can do it differently than other minds. In all these cases, the mind involved leaves its mark on the sense made, and recognizing the potential significance of that observable fact is the crux of MDR thinking.

  22. #9952
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That's a classic example of a model. One doesn't prove models, one tests them. But you have not told us your model for "exists". When you do that, you will answer your own question.
    The test is to check if we exist. We exist. Doesn't that prove it?

  23. #9953
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,367
    Quote Originally Posted by starcanuck64 View Post
    It's a individual process that each mind undergoes to place into context information received. And no two minds process exactly the same information in exactly the same way, so discussing some separate and fixed "reality" is pointless.

    Reality isn't occurring outside of our thoughts, it's entirely constructed by them. That doesn't mean we create the information needed to create a model of reality, just that minds are essential to process information to build a model we call "reality". There is no context in which to place a reality outside of this.

    In the end reality is an ongoing and dynamic process, not a fixed and static physical property. The deeper we look the more amorphous "reality" becomes.
    Maybe we are just having a semantical problem. You probably have a different interpretation of "reality" to mine. Where does the information come from that you say we use to create the model called "reality"? For me, that external information is reality.

  24. #9954
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    And what do you mean by the "topic of a model"? You see, to an MIR nonbeliever, a "topic of a model" is merely an organizational tool for putting the model into some kind of broader context, so a "horse" model has a topic, and a "unicorn" model also has a topic. But being an MIR believer,
    Ken, I've already explained in the feedback thread why I find the often-repeated label "MIR believer" offensive, especially when it is contrasted to "MDR thinker" as you've done in the past. If you'd like me to take the time to consider your arguments and questions, then you'll need to stop using that term.
    Last edited by Colin Robinson; 2015-Dec-30 at 07:07 AM.

  25. #9955
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,778
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The test is to check if we exist. We exist. Doesn't that prove it?
    You mean, create a model we call "existence", and test it? Yes, that is very much the scientific way to go. But of course, the question is, what are the attributes of the "existence" model that we can test? That's what the scientist means when they say they exist. That's why I say the MDR way to say "I think therefore I am" is actually "I think, therefore I can say that I am, and test what I mean by that." The result is, of course, mind dependent.

  26. #9956
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I would need a mind to understand what you are asking. And a different mind from mine would understand what you are asking in a very different way, and answer it in a very different way. This is the mind dependence I'm talking about. It's perfectly observable, and it's kind of silly to deny what is so easily observed. Yet, true believers do that all the time, belief trumps observation. That's why it is not particularly conducive to good science.

    Yes, but some things are unchangeable and do not change no matter how you interpret them and observing them!
    Accidents killing you are one of those things and that reality does not care on what you think about it and how do you describe the reality, the reality stays always the same, no matter what the mind is trying to do to this reality in order to change, reality does not change ever and the facts od this reality don't change ever, it's up to people who would want for reality be something else-lmind-dependent and mind-created reality believers.

    You are forgetting again crucial facts: world continuously and constantly creates physical effects no matter what you think of them, no matter if your mind observe them or not; no matter if your mind is aware of them or not, the physical effects happen all the time.
    No, mind would not understand it differently that's a fact. Since everything works and happens in the same principles, and that's why interpretation cannot and does not change, because that one interpretation is correct, everything else is a matter of fairy tales.
    The main problem comes from what you cannot observe.
    Also the main problem is that we only observe and extremely small part of reality to actually directly observe and see what is really going on, especially those parts that are unobservable by science.

  27. #9957
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Robinson View Post
    Ken, I've already explained in the feedback thread why I find the often-repeated label "MIR believer" offensive, especially when it is contrasted to "MDR thinker" as you've done in the past. If you'd like me to take the time to consider your arguments and questions, then you'll need to stop using that term.
    The term "MDR thinker" is unnecessary, because even MIR believers have to think. So I can change that to "MDR tester," to denote someone who is willing to test that whenever people use the term "reality", they mean something that depends on their mind, and a very different mind means something very different. The reason I use the term "MIR believer" is well documented above, it is just clearly appropriate, based on evidence. MIR has been shown to be a belief, and indeed no one has been able to show it isn't. Then, we have the term "MIR belief-denier" to mean someone who denies that belief in MIR is indeed a belief (and "denier" is appropriate because of the mountain of evidence provided that it is indeed a belief). So using the terms "MIR believer", "MDR tester", and "MIR belief-denier" completes the terminology that is well evidenced in all cases. None of those terms are offensive-- they are all just facts, based on easily observable evidence, fleshed out in this very thread.

    The key points here are only what has been shown with evidence:
    1) people who believe in MIR have chosen a belief that never makes any predictions not available to everyone who has no MIR belief, because lacking that belief causes us to miss out on no predictive power whatsoever, since predictive power can be seen to come exclusively from well-tested models that depend on our minds, and
    2) people who test MDR find that indeed, people who use the "reality" concept do indeed invoke their minds in easily demonstrable ways, ways that can be observed with any amount of digging to be a bit different from other minds.
    Hence, this thread has shown, very clearly, that different people mean different things when they talk about "reality", and it has shown, very clearly, that some people who believe in MIR can see the evidence that it is a belief and have no issue with that, but a few still refuse to accept that they have chosen a belief.

    You yourself have called it a "reasonable belief", which would seem to admit that it is a belief, would it not? The key issue is then:
    what do you think your belief adds to the reality concept that is testable?
    So far, I have not ever seen you claim that your belief adds anything that is testable, and I have given countless examples of people espousing MIR belief in a way that indeed adds no predictive power at all, so do you agree that there is no such addition that comes with your "reasonable belief"? If so, then you are a realist, but not an MIR belief-denier. But if you claim your belief does add something testable, but will not test your claim, then you are a denier that you have chosen a personal belief, even though you cannot support your denial with evidence.

    The point of the thread is not to label the participants, an exercise I care about not at all, except to accomplish the real purpose: to be able to ascertain the difference between a well-tested scientific model, and a chosen belief.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2015-Dec-30 at 08:41 AM.

  28. #9958
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    You mean, create a model we call "existence", and test it? Yes, that is very much the scientific way to go. But of course, the question is, what are the attributes of the "existence" model that we can test? That's what the scientist means when they say they exist. That's why I say the MDR way to say "I think therefore I am" is actually "I think, therefore I can say that I am, and test what I mean by that." The result is, of course, mind dependent.
    We can test us and everything else, this is why I said to test if reality exists you need to test if you are going to be seriously injured or get killed if you test those more extreme situations-accidents that can kill you-the examples that I have shown you, and you ignored all of them.
    If something kills you or injures you it means that you exist-and this is 100% proven. Someone who questions his own existence should make tests that I was proposing and than you'll see 100% proven that you and everyone else also exist, too.
    This is why I said that it can be 100% proven that you and all other people exist-and this is 100% absolutely, 100% irrefutably proven.

  29. #9959
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Lobo View Post
    Yes, but some things are unchangeable and do not change no matter how you interpret them and observing them!
    No one ever said that "mind dependence" means "mind changeable", in the sense of imagining something into being-- that is purely your own wrong interpretation of what that phrase means. I have told you many times what is meant by it, but I can repeat again: mind dependence means that we make sense in ways that depend on our minds, such that what we say is happening, how we think about what is happening, and how we feel about what is happening, depend on our minds-- even in science, despite the extreme efforts there to limit and minimize mind dependence. So although our minds cannot change dying into living, if we get run over by a car, our minds do indeed say what we mean by death, and what we mean by life-- and two very different minds could have two very different ideas about what those words mean. Haven't you ever heard people say that some experience was "like having a part of them die"? That's what I'm talking about, the mind dependence of the "death" concept. Or, if someone is "clinically dead", but resuscitated, is that "life after death" in some "mind independent" sense, or isn't it? You just can't see the mind dependence in these questions if you insist on painting over everything with black-and-white MIR beliefs, the necessary nuance simply isn't there.
    This is why I said that it can be 100% proven that you and all other people exist-and this is 100% absolutely, 100% irrefutably proven.
    The mind dependence there comes long before there could be any kind of proof-- it is there as soon as you tell me what you mean by the "existence" that is being proven. So, what do you mean by it?
    Last edited by Ken G; 2015-Dec-30 at 08:31 AM.

  30. #9960
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The reasons I use those terms are well documented above. I could replace "MDR thinker" with "MDR tester", that would be more appropriate, because even MIR believers must certainly "think." The reason I use the term "MIR believer" has been spectacularly well documented: MIR has been shown to be a belief, nor has anyone been able to show it isn't. So I will use the terms "MIR belief-denier" to mean someone who denies that belief in MIR is indeed a belief (and "denier" is appropriate because of the mountain of evidence provided that it is indeed a belief), and "MDR tester" to mean someone who tests that when people use the word "reality", they mean something by that term that depends on their minds. The key points are only what has been shown with evidence:
    No, it depends on reality, it's up to you if you still claim that something is alive, and the reality is that it is dead. MIR don't believe in anything, anyone who is MDR is eternal believer. MIR is not a believer, I have shown it's accepting facts the way they are it's not about the changing them the way MDR wants it. Fore example: If you are dead, than you are dead, accept it, it's not the state of the mind since there is no way this person can ever be alive, also second example is people get killed, when you get killed you are killed, it doesn't matter what mind thinks of this, since the mind cannot think again-these are facts and evidences and there is no belief in-it just is you like or not, there is no mind and there is no interpretation that can change these facts ever!
    MDR is the most extreme, and the most religious movement ever.

    1) people who believe in MIR have chosen a belief that never makes any predictions, nor does anyone who lacks that belief miss out on any predictive power whatsoever, and
    You have to realize that people have no faith in MIR, MIR only means the reality is the way it is, no experiment will ever change facts that your mind cannot change reality and that you can easily get killed by all forms of accidents-these are not beliefs or interpretations, these are facts, they happen every single second on this planet and everywhere in the universe.
    MIR means does make predictions, and that is 100% proven than we are all going to die we like it or not, and this is not some interpretation it is a fact, you are playing with words in trying to say that this is all relative and mind-dependable, no it's not, it happens we like it or not you can change interpretations in any form your like on any level but it doesn't change these mentioned facts-we like it or not.
    MDR smply comes from not accepting those cruel facts, and than people create such nonsense just for their lives and their investigations have meaninigs in order to prove that we will never die, we will die we like it or not not model will ever change this reality, no model will ever change the fact that whatever predictions and models we make, some facts are simply unchangeable; like life and death, creation and destruction, and that reality creates mind, not the other way around and etc.

    2) people who test MDR find that indeed, people who use the "reality" concept do indeed invoke their minds in easily demonstrable ways, that are a bit different from other minds.
    This thread has shown, very clearly, that different people mean different things when they talk about "reality", and it has shown, very clearly, that some people who believe in MIR can see the evidence that it is a belief and have no issue with that, but a few still refuse to accept that they have chosen a belief. You yourself have called it a "reasonable belief", which would seem to admit that it is a belief, would it not? The key issue is this:
    what do you think your belief adds that is testable?
    So far, I have not ever seen you claim that your belief adds anything is testable, do you agree that there is no such addition that comes with your "reasonable belief"? If so, then you are a realist, but not an MIR belief-denier. If not, then you are both a realist, and a denier that you have chosen a personal belief there. The whole point of the thread is to be able to ascertain the difference between a well-tested scientific model, and a chosen belief. Making that distinction should be an important topic for any science forum.[/QUOTE]


    Well, if we go by that way, than if you want tests I gave them to you the problem is that you do not accept them, neither does science science is scared to be wrong. And just because it's not testable in scientific ways with scientific standards it does not mean that it is not true, this is why I said that accidents are the real tests, not testable by science. Accidents and facts that we all on this forum exist behind our computers is also 100% proven, but it cannot be scientifically proven by scientific standards-these are not any form of beliefs they are facts, we can believe whatever we want, but facts are facts and these facts; you can never change them.
    Cheers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •