Can we have understanding of natural phenomena without a model?

[Speakpigeon]

The color blue is not a model.

The words "Moon", "Earth", "orbiting" are not models of resp. the Moon, the Earth, and orbiting, but "The Moon is orbiting the Earth" is a model of the Moon orbiting the Earth.
EB

 

[untermensche]

A model would have to explain in some way why the Moon moves the way it does.

Just saying it moves is not a model.

 

[untermensche]

The perception of colour is an aspect of the mental model of the external world that the brain constructs from information acquired through its senses, the information being wavelength.

You are using the term "model" in a completely different way.

A scientific model is an explanation of phenomena. It requires a mind that has had education to make sense of them or devise them.

What a brain does is make representations of phenomena not explanations or models.

 

[fast]

My original understanding of an airplane surfaced without first encountering a model airplain. Maybe you have something else in mind when you say "model?"

 

[untermensche]

My original understanding of an airplane surfaced without first encountering a model airplain. Maybe you have something else in mind when you say "model?"

Did the explanation for how the plane stayed in the air appear as well? Seeing phenomena is one thing. Explaining and therefore understanding it is something else.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The color blue is not a model.

The words "Moon", "Earth", "orbiting" are not models of resp. the Moon, the Earth, and orbiting, but "The Moon is orbiting the Earth" is a model of the Moon orbiting the Earth.
EB

And then obviously, while no colour is a model on its own, the whole system of colours does say something about the world, in this case light, so it is itself a model.

And it's because our colour system is a model that we can use it to form a visual representation of things around us, representation which is itself also a model of the world.

A very useful model as we all know, I'm sure.
EB.

 

[fast]

My original understanding of an airplane surfaced without first encountering a model airplain. Maybe you have something else in mind when you say "model?"

Did the explanation for how the plane stayed in the air appear as well? Seeing phenomena is one thing. Explaining and therefore understanding it is something else.

It's this model dependency that's bothering me. If I take a class and learn, it's not like my understanding will lie dormant until I come across glue and plastic parts.

 

[untermensche]

My original understanding of an airplane surfaced without first encountering a model airplain. Maybe you have something else in mind when you say "model?"

Did the explanation for how the plane stayed in the air appear as well? Seeing phenomena is one thing. Explaining and therefore understanding it is something else.

It's this model dependency that's bothering me. If I take a class and learn, it's not like my understanding will lie dormant until I come across glue and plastic parts.

You do not understand anything about why a plane flies by observing one flying.

An observation is not an explanation. It is not a model.

This is about the need of models to gain understanding of natural phenomena.

If you think they are not needed show where we have an understanding and not just an observation.

 

[untermensche]

The color blue is not a model.

The words "Moon", "Earth", "orbiting" are not models of resp. the Moon, the Earth, and orbiting, but "The Moon is orbiting the Earth" is a model of the Moon orbiting the Earth.
EB

And then obviously, while no colour is a model on its own, the whole system of colours does say something about the world, in this case light, so it is itself a model.

And it's because our colour system is a model that we can use it to form a visual representation of things around us, representation which is itself also a model of the world.

A very useful model as we all know, I'm sure.
EB.

You are using a different definition of " model". Blue is not a model of the energy that was the stimulus that hits the eye.

Blue is a transformation of one kind of information into completely different information. Nothing is modeled. Something is transformed.

 

[fromderinside]

Have you ever seen a black fire? How do we get from black to cold, very cold, or, without energy of matter for that matter?

Now a cave at a constant 55 degrees F can be seen as black until one bumps into something there then it's hard.

I'm pretty sure a Manta sees shape and movement because they are known to to me to have reacted to them.

I don't really understand why a limulus bridges to the proximity of a soldering iron though.

Why these ancient beasts? Well because they do wome of what we do to the same stimuli that why.

 

[untermensche]

Is that in any way responsive to any thing?

The topic is understanding natural phenomena.

Not responding to it.

Not transforming it.

Understanding It.

Where do we have understanding of natural phenomena without a model?

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are using a different definition of " model".

I don't think so, no.

Blue is not a model of the energy that was the stimulus that hits the eye.

Read again. I didn't say blue was a model. I said our colour system as a whole is a model.

You should learn to read properly. Saves time.

Maybe reading isn't enough, anyway. You'd need understanding as well.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

"Isn't our conscious experience a real, imaginary, model of itself?" said the guy who thought he wasn't going to think about that statement before he posted it.

 

[untermensche]

You are using a different definition of " model".

I don't think so, no.

Blue is not a model of the energy that was the stimulus that hits the eye.

Read again. I didn't say blue was a model. I said our colour system as a whole is a model.

You should learn to read properly. Saves time.

Maybe reading isn't enough, anyway. You'd need understanding as well.
EB

Our "color system", whatever that is, is a model of what?

 

[untermensche]

"Isn't our conscious experience a real, imaginary, model of itself?" said the guy who thought he wasn't going to think about that statement before he posted it.

An observation is not a model.

A model is something humans construct.

And they construct them to try to explain phenomena.

 

[DBT]

The perception of colour is an aspect of the mental model of the external world that the brain constructs from information acquired through its senses, the information being wavelength.

You are using the term "model" in a completely different way.

A scientific model is an explanation of phenomena. It requires a mind that has had education to make sense of them or devise them.

What a brain does is make representations of phenomena not explanations or models.

A model is a construct that represents something, a model of the solar system sitting on a school table, a model of the human body in a doctors office, a model of evolution, etc....the brain constructs an internal mental model of the information it acquires from the senses....which we call consciousness, seeing people, cars, houses, trees, animals, etc, but what we perceive is not the actual objects but the brains representation of them; which is a mental construct or model.

 

[fromderinside]

A model is something humans construct.

Color sensitive birds and mammals respond to colors just as men do. They see red things as red things and green things as green things. Hey they even see shapes as we see them. Are color seeing,shape seeing, and 24 cycle sensitive birds and mammals model builders too? Oh poop. We're just the same.

 

[fast]

It's this model dependency that's bothering me. If I take a class and learn, it's not like my understanding will lie dormant until I come across glue and plastic parts.

You do not understand anything about why a plane flies by observing one flying.

An observation is not an explanation. It is not a model.

This is about the need of models to gain understanding of natural phenomena.

If you think they are not needed show where we have an understanding and not just an observation.

Do you seriously not see my error? It's almost as if you're blind to ambiguity.

When a model wears a sun dress, her age is not a function of hair color. Suppose no woman ever modeled!

That use of "model" is different than a model house or model airplane.

I'm gathering (since you apparently aren't going to explain) that you have some mental notion in mind when you say model. This x requires Y dynamic to your assertion lacks backing. What do you have in mind that is required. To say a model is insufficient to convey what you have in mind.

It's crazy obvious that we don't need a model airplane for there to be an airplane, and it's crazy obvious that we don't need a model airplane to have an understanding of what it's like to fly. Stupendously obvious because I'm intentionally using "model" differently than you. This is where you could jump in and explain that I'm using the term differently than you and how you have something else entirely in mind.

Furthermore, it's crazy obvious that if all models quit being models and became bakers and musicians instead, we would still have people who understand well the many aspects of flying airplanes. That would be a second opportunity for you to recognize that I have yet again conflated the meaning of "model."

A model is a representation. Why must every understanding have a corresponding representation? There are many diagrammed models put to paper that help to teach others so that they understand things, but not even models of that kind is what I suspect you have in mind by "model."

You mean something, I'm sure, but what could it be that also makes you think it's always necessary if not some mental phenomena?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Read again. I didn't say blue was a model. I said our colour system as a whole is a model.

You should learn to read properly. Saves time.

Maybe reading isn't enough, anyway. You'd need understanding as well.
EB

Our "color system", whatever that is, is a model of what?

You'd need understanding.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

...of selective grouping perhaps ... ohhhhh