"Objective" Evidence

[steve_bank]

We cannot know that what we think of as the real world is not just some elaborate simulation (indeed, even if what appears to be real is real, our internal model of it is a simulation anyway). But who cares? If what we know about the world is, in fact, stuff we know about the simulation, then it's still useful knowledge. After all, we only interact with the simulation. It's useful to be able to predict how it will react to what we do.

In modern terms it is a simulation or emulation of perceptions. Visually we see photons, and photon detection, ie electromagnetic waves, is a large part of science. Outside of what we can detect and extrapolate from it we are essentially blind.

As I like to say, trhe question 'What is reality?' is meaningless.

In modern science we build models based on what we can see and detect and extrapolate.

Have you read Flatland? It is proably public domain on the net.

My paradigm is as follows. In an interview the late Carver Meade said 'I do not know if an electron exists but I know I can do useful things withnthe idea'.

QM showed there is no such trhing as an independent observer. What we observe is both that which is being measured and the experimental apparatus. I place a thermometer in a cup of water. The temperature is not just the water, the thermometer upsets the equilibrium.

The example is trivial. In the particle slit diffraction experiemnt it is not. Does what we call a partticle have both wave and partcle qualities at the same time or is the duality due to the experiment itself. There is no way to tell. As a result we build models on the experiment and find that the models have real world uses. Through science we build a mental picture or simulation of reality in our heads, how close it is to reality is not knowable.

The map is not the countryside.

From a show I waqtched there is an area of the brain where our nodel of reality resides.

 

[DBT]

The distinction is something in your mind like color.

I was pointing out the fact that your physical body literally and objectively cannot pass through a solid wall regardless of your experience of it. The same is true for everybody, including objects. You cannot throw a ball through a solid wall, yet your ball has no experience,

There is nothing literal about it.

You have some experiences. That is all. You have the experience of your body and the experience of your body encountering the experience of a wall. Experience on top of experience. Nothing else.

Except what you with your mind make out of the experience.

All you have are experiences.

You have no wall.

None that you could prove exist.

Just repeating the same lameness over and over about having some experiences of the wall is getting old. They are just experiences.

Not a wall.

The wall is something you have faith in based on subjective experiences.

Your mantra again. What is literal is a body of information that is true for all observers. Nobody has the experience of passing through solid walls unless they are delusional. Nobody observers others passing through solid walls unless they are delusional.

That one cannot pass through a solid wall is a body of information that is true for all observers, except the delusional.

The knowledge that one cannot walk through solid walls being on example of objective information. Testable. Verifiable. Predictable. You can take that to the bank.

 

[untermensche]

Your mantra again. What is literal is a body of information that is true for all observers. Nobody has the experience of passing through solid walls unless they are delusional. Nobody observers others passing through solid walls unless they are delusional.

That one cannot pass through a solid wall is a body of information that is true for all observers, except the delusional.

The knowledge that one cannot walk through solid walls being on example of objective information. Testable. Verifiable. Predictable. You can take that to the bank.

What you call a mantra are facts you can't deal with.

You cannot speak of "all observers".

You have no information about "all observers".

You know your subjective experiences and nothing else.

You do not know what anyone else experiences. You might get a report about their experience which to you is just an experience of a report.

 

[untermensche]

It's really annoying that given all we know (and not merely believing) that actual knowledge is conflated with the possibility that we might be mistaken. It's the hallmark of extremism to push an idea into a boxed corner that virtually leaves no room. People become so fixated on the ideas they have that they contort language and the meaning of words. It seems so hopeless to make true progress.

What you are saying is there has been utility in having faith in objects.

And there is utility in having faith in objects.

That's why we have the faith.

But we do not know objects.

What we know are subjective experiences.

And we have belief these experiences point to objects.

Not once have I said that objects are not there.

That is as dogmatic as saying they are there.

We do not know.

But we have faith and act on that faith and generally have no problems with that.

 

[untermensche]

It's really annoying that given all we know (and not merely believing) that actual knowledge is conflated with the possibility that we might be mistaken. It's the hallmark of extremism to push an idea into a boxed corner that virtually leaves no room. People become so fixated on the ideas they have that they contort language and the meaning of words. It seems so hopeless to make true progress.

The fact that we have been to the moon and we know disease is caused by bacteria and viruses instead of evil spitits says otherwise.

It is not that we can be mistaken, it is more that we can not know anything with absolute certainty. It was obvious the Sun went round the Earth. Now it is obviously not true. In general science created knowledge using arbitrary reference points and units. Untermenche conflates that with subjective.

You have reasons for believing there are objects behind experiences.

Your faith is not blind faith.

It is faith however.

You could be wrong like with all faith.

But it is not like religious faith which is blind faith in things never experienced.

 

[fast]

It's really annoying that given all we know (and not merely believing) that actual knowledge is conflated with the possibility that we might be mistaken. It's the hallmark of extremism to push an idea into a boxed corner that virtually leaves no room. People become so fixated on the ideas they have that they contort language and the meaning of words. It seems so hopeless to make true progress.

What you are saying is there has been utility in having faith in objects.

And there is utility in having faith in objects.

That's why we have the faith.

But we do not know objects.

What we know are subjective experiences.

And we have belief these experiences point to objects.

Not once have I said that objects are not there.

That is as dogmatic as saying they are there.

We do not know.

But we have faith and act on that faith and generally have no problems with that.

No, that's not what I am saying. That's your interpretation of what I'm saying.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Color is not activity.

False, according to your own terms.

It is a finished product

Likewise false and equivocation. You are conflating process with product.

It can not—and does not—directly experience the content of the “presentations” that you claim the brain creates for the “mind” to “experience.”

The mind experiences presentations.

According to your own terms, you just said brain activity experiences brain activity. The “mind” is generated by brain activity. “Presentations” are generated by brain activity.

Finished products of activity.

Assertion, false and equivocation. You are conflating process with product.

If you are an actor given a script wherein the character you play kills another character, you—the actor—have not directly experienced killing another human being.

No.

“No” to what? No to the fact that the actor has not directly experienced anything other than the process of reading the script?

This, however, is exaclty what you are claiming is the case; that the “mind” is the “thing that experiences” (i.e., directly).

It experiences things like color.

“Color” is not a “thing.” You are equivocating; conflating process with product.

Fabrications, presentations, creations, finished products.

Equivocation, equivocation, equivocation, equivocation, all of which are conflating process with product.

“Activity” by definition, is an ongoing process. The color “red” is likewise an ongoing process, not a “finished product.” It is exaclty the illusion of the bird inside the cage. The illusion of the bird inside the cage is not a “finished product” or “thing.” It is the activity, not the “product” of the activity, except in the most trivial sense of that word, which is where your equivocation keeps trying to hide.

The heater generates heat, but Heat—the concept—is not a product of the heater in any discrete manner, only in the most liberal of semantics. You don’t turn on a heater, it generates a block of “Heat” and you then pick up that block of “Heat” as a “finished product” and put it into your pocket. That would be conflating process with product.

Strip away all of your equiovocation and freshman word play and it all boils down to “everything is brain activity.” If there is any “product” it is that and that alone and there is no way for you to escape it, just as there is no way for anyone to prove it, other than empirically, ironically.

We—what you are calling the “mind”—is the illusion of the bird in the cage, but there is no bird in the cage. That is why we call it an illusion. It does not actually exist in any discrete form; in any “presentation” or “fabrication” or “finished product.”

That is an obvious category error.

REGARDLESS, every single thing you have ever argued on any of these points has been inferred as that is all that is available to brains in skulls vats. Inference. Redefining (equivocating) “inference” to be “faith” or “belief” is unwarranted and pointless freshman semantics games, but is very clearly your agenda.

Why?

 

[untermensche]

The color “red” is likewise an ongoing process

Total nonsense. What process?

A process is used to create "red" for a mind to experience.

A mind is a product of brain activity and it can experience other products of brain activity.

Processes cannot be experienced and are not experienced.

You are totally in outer space.

“Activity” by definition, is an ongoing process.

And a product is something created by activity.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A process is used to create "red" for a mind to experience.

Total nonsense. The experience of “red” is the result of the process of brain activity.

A mind is a product of brain activity

A “mind” is the illusion created by the process of brain activity.

and it can experience other products of brain activity.

There is no such thing as a “product” of brain activity, except in the colloquial use of that term. Brain activity is all there is to every single thing you have ever argued. Brain activity and nothing but brain activity.

You are totally in outer space.

 

[untermensche]

Total nonsense. The experience of “red” is the result of the process of brain activity.

A result is a product.

A “mind” is the illusion created by the process of brain activity.

Laughable.

 

[steve_bank]

It's really annoying that given all we know (and not merely believing) that actual knowledge is conflated with the possibility that we might be mistaken. It's the hallmark of extremism to push an idea into a boxed corner that virtually leaves no room. People become so fixated on the ideas they have that they contort language and the meaning of words. It seems so hopeless to make true progress.

The fact that we have been to the moon and we know disease is caused by bacteria and viruses instead of evil spitits says otherwise.

It is not that we can be mistaken, it is more that we can not know anything with absolute certainty. It was obvious the Sun went round the Earth. Now it is obviously not true. In general science created knowledge using arbitrary reference points and units. Untermenche conflates that with subjective.

You have reasons for believing there are objects behind experiences.

Your faith is not blind faith.

It is faith however.

You could be wrong like with all faith.

But it is not like religious faith which is blind faith in things never experienced.

No No 100 times no!

Objective and subjective are categories of perception and experience. Neeither say anything about validity of perception of reality. What reality 'is' is not knowable with certainity. To answer that question we would need an absolute reference vuew or point, which is not possible.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Total nonsense. The experience of “red” is the result of the process of brain activity.

A result is a product.

Equivocation. What you mean is “a result is a discrete unit.” That is false in regard to brain activity. There are no discrete units of anything created by brain activity. It is the ongoing activity itself that you are referring to every time you mention “color” or “mind.”

There is no bird inside the cage. There is a bird. There is a cage. The spinning—the activity—generates the illusion of the bird inside the cage. The spinning of the brain generates the illusion of a “mind” and the illusion of “color” but if I asked you what “red” is ever second of your life, then every second it would change when you told me what it was, because now it would be “red + Koy asked me about red” and now it would be “red + Koy asked me about red + Koy asked me about red again” and now it would be “red + Koy asked me about red + Koy asked me about red again + Why is Koy asking me about red again, I already told him” etc.,etc., etc.

Your sophistry is as asinine as proclaiming that a river is a “finished product.”

A “mind” is the illusion created by the process of brain activity.

Laughable.

Not a counter-argument.

Literally everything you have posted (itt and the other) is nothing more than brain activity all the way down. “Mind”=brain activity. “Experience”=brain activity. “Presentations”=brain activity. Nothing but brain activity. Thus every single thing you have uttered falls under one category and one category only: brain activity. Non-stop (and therefore non-discrete) activity.

Your brain is not hammering pieces of wood together inside your skull and producing a chair that you can then call a “finished product” fixed for all eternity. The bird inside the cage only appears to exist only so long as the placard is spinning; it doesn’t actually exist at any given time and can never be considered a “finished product” unless one is equivocating the terms as you are quite clearly doing.

Why?

 

[DBT]

Your mantra again. What is literal is a body of information that is true for all observers. Nobody has the experience of passing through solid walls unless they are delusional. Nobody observers others passing through solid walls unless they are delusional.

That one cannot pass through a solid wall is a body of information that is true for all observers, except the delusional.

The knowledge that one cannot walk through solid walls being on example of objective information. Testable. Verifiable. Predictable. You can take that to the bank.

What you call a mantra are facts you can't deal with.

You cannot speak of "all observers".

You have no information about "all observers".

You know your subjective experiences and nothing else.

You do not know what anyone else experiences. You might get a report about their experience which to you is just an experience of a report.

Never in the history of the human race has there been a credible report of someone walking through a solid wall, flying through the air using the magic of consciousness, etc, etc.....the physical world has clearly defined laws and principles. Laws and principles that apply to all inhabitants of the world. Laws and principles that are therefore objective. Surely even you can make the distinction between the nature of dreams and the experience of interacting with the physical world..

If you can't, you are living in denial...

 

[DBT]

Even if the World is ultimately an illusion, a construct of a deluded mind, the illusion that we experience has well defined rules and regulations which we cannot overcome through an act of will or altered consciousness, hence even if ultimately and illusion, the principles of the world we feel we inhabit are objective, ie, they do not change according to the experiences of individuals.

 

[steve_bank]

Ypgic Flying. TM used to have classes, for a fee of course. What it amounted to was sitting on a cushion and jerking yourself up. The Tibetan tradition has reported levitation.

http://www.suggestibility.org/

http://www.amazingabilities.com/amaze9a.html

 

[DBT]

Some Yogi's do have incredible control of bodily functions, but an ability that contradicts the laws of physics has yet to be demonstrated.

 

[untermensche]

You have reasons for believing there are objects behind experiences.

Your faith is not blind faith.

It is faith however.

You could be wrong like with all faith.

But it is not like religious faith which is blind faith in things never experienced.

No No 100 times no!

Objective and subjective are categories of perception and experience. Neeither say anything about validity of perception of reality. What reality 'is' is not knowable with certainity. To answer that question we would need an absolute reference vuew or point, which is not possible.

A perception is what an active mind makes of an experience.

An object is something an active mind imagines is behind experience.

All perceptions of a table exist in a mind.

They exist nowhere else.

We are minds experiencing.

And we have beliefs about the world based on those experiences.

We believe there are objects

A very strong faith.

- - - Updated - - -

Never in the history of the human race has there been a credible report of someone walking through a solid wall

Something pulled from your ass.

Prove it.

What you mean is you have never had the experience of pushing through what you experience as a wall.

What you mean is you have experienced a wall.

And based on your experiences you believe a wall is there.

All you have is your faith in something.

You cannot peal back your experiences to see if they actually point to something real.

 

[untermensche]

Equivocation.

You use that word like a man who has fallen over a cliff uses a branch. To hold on for dear life.

What you mean is “a result is a discrete unit.”

I mean exactly what you said.

Brain activity results in what an active mind (also a product, a result, of brain activity) experiences as red.

Red is a product of brain activity.

Period.

Consciousness is the mingling of brain products. The mingling of a created mind that can experience with experiences created for a mind.

There are no discrete units of anything created by brain activity.

Says who? Red is discrete. It is not blue. It is not green. It is some thing to perceive. Not an activity. An end result of activity.

Facts pulled from your ass are not impressive.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Equivocation.

You use that word like a man who has fallen over a cliff uses a branch.

You use it for your entire fallacy.

I mean exactly wha you said.

And yet, will once again equivocate by conflating process with product instead. Why?

Brain activity results in what an active mind (also a product, a result, of brain activity) experiences as red.

Red is a product of brain activity.

So, once again, brain activity all the way down.

Red is discrete.

It is not a discrete unit; it is not a “finished product.” It is an illusion generated by process. It is the activity, not a “product of” the activity. Do you seriously not understand what a category error is?

Not an activity.

Yes, an activity.

An end result of activity.

This is identical to you saying that the “end result” of brain activity—the “final product”—is that the bird is inside the cage. Is that the case? Is there a bird inside the cage? No, there is not. So the “final product”—the “discrete unit”—cannot be “bird inside the cage.”

As you previously pointed out, “red” is not just the wavelength; it is all of the associations with the wavelength that make up the “experience” of “red” for each individual. Those accumulated associations/feelings/events/experiences are all the parts of the overall and they are on-going until death. Every single time your eyes discern the “red” wavelength, a brand new illusion is generated, not merely all of the old “discrete units” of previous “red” experiences. As I pointed out (and you avoided), it is “red + current state” not merely “red.” Your thinking is two dimensional.

The sum of all that activity at any give moment may be referred to as “red” but that is merely the category name of a whirlwind of activity, not a discrete unit; not a slice of pie. You’re pointing at a molecule of water and declaring it to be the river. That is moronic.

 

[untermensche]

Give me a break.

You have the process creating the experience of a cage and you have a different process creating the experience of a bird.

And the final product of the two processes when combined is a different product.

All the experience of end products.

Brain activity is not experienced.

If you claim it is which activity is experienced?

What activity is it that leads to consciousness?