Can we have understanding of natural phenomena without 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.

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.

This thread is about how humans gain an understanding of natural phenomena.

We certainly can get around because of the "representations", not models, of the external world made by the brain.

But these representations do not give us understanding of any phenomena. They do allow us to survive within it.

This is about understanding natural phenomena, not being able to survive.

Ants can survive because of the representations made by their brains. But to say they have any understanding of natural phenomena because of these representations is absurd.

 

[untermensche]

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

I need someone that can explain what they say.

What is this color system you talk of a model of?

This thread is about how humans gain an understanding of natural phenomena.

You don't understand anything about color by experiencing it except what the subjective experience of color is.

 

[untermensche]

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?

I agree a model plane that can fly can tell us some things about flight but it will not give us an understanding of the natural phenomena which allows flight.

This thread is about how humans gain an understanding of natural phenomena.

In that context what is meant by model should be very clear.

 

[untermensche]

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.

That is great.

This thread is about how humans gain an understanding of natural phenomena.

What does this have to do with it?

Color is a phenomena of brains, not objects observed.

As you say birds definitely experience color. Do they have an understanding of the phenomena of color by experiencing them?

Is an experience the same as a scientific understanding?

 

[untermensche]

This thread is about how humans gain a scientific understanding of natural phenomena.

Can that be accomplished without a working testable model?

This is a direct response to those who claim we have a scientific understanding of consciousness but as I said it is very general.

If somebody says a scientific understanding can be gained without a model they should show some understanding of natural phenomena that we have without a model.

 

[Kharakov]

So all this talk about models made me think:

What glue holds our models together as one cohesive whole, or are they fields of everlapping thoughts arranged in particular ways (due to overlapping thoughts), how do I sniff it, and does sniffing consciousness model glue kill brain cells?

does talking to me?

 

[Speakpigeon]

You'd need understanding.
EB

I need someone that can explain what they say.

What is this color system you talk of a model of?

This thread is about how humans gain an understanding of natural phenomena.

You don't understand anything about color by experiencing it except what the subjective experience of color is.

About colours?! Did I say our colour system allowed us to understand something about colours?!

Again, you should pay more attention to what people actually say. Instead, you make up stories and respond to that.

The history of our "discussions" shows explaining to you is nearly always a waste of time.

In this instance, it's even worse. That our colour system is a model of some actual thing in the world around us will be pretty obvious to all and yet you say you don't understand. How come?

Of course, that it is a model is shown by the fact that colour vision is very, very useful to us to survive in our natural environment. How could it be useful at all without being a model of something real?

That you can't understand that on your own would justify explaining it to you. Except, as I said, it would very likely be a waste of my time.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This thread is about how humans gain a scientific understanding of natural phenomena.

Can that be accomplished without a working testable model?

This is a direct response to those who claim we have a scientific understanding of consciousness but as I said it is very general.

If somebody says a scientific understanding can be gained without a model they should show some understanding of natural phenomena that we have without a model.

No. This thread is about the conditions for having some understanding of natural phenomena.

You didn't specify you meant scientific understanding.

Look again at your own OP here:

What does it take to say you have at least some understanding of natural phenomena?

This is specifically aimed at those who claim we can have an objective understanding of consciousness, but it is general as well.

Can we claim to have any understanding of a natural phenomena without at the very least a model?

What natural phenomena do we have some understanding of yet have no model?

And to be clear a model of consciousness is just some kind of explanation for how some kind of activity could result in the phenomena of having the ability to have a conscious animal experience.

A model is also something that can be tested and compared with collected data.

No clue in there that this was all about a scientific understanding.

You just moved the goal posts and you're not even prepared to admit to it.

Nothing new here, though.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You'd need understanding.
EB

I need someone that can explain what they say.

What is this color system you talk of a model of?

This thread is about how humans gain an understanding of natural phenomena.

You don't understand anything about color by experiencing it except what the subjective experience of color is.

About colours?! Did I say our colour system allowed us to understand something about colours?!

Again, you should pay more attention to what people actually say. Instead, you make up stories and respond to that.

The history of our "discussions" shows explaining to you is nearly always a waste of time.

In this instance, it's even worse. That our colour system is a model of some actual thing in the world around us will be pretty obvious to all and yet you say you don't understand. How come?

Of course, that it is a model is shown by the fact that colour vision is very, very useful to us to survive in our natural environment. How could it be useful at all without being a model of something real?

That you can't understand that on your own would justify explaining it to you. Except, as I said, it would very likely be a waste of my time.
EB

Colors are not a model of anything.

I explained this already.

Color is something evolved brains make whole. They are only a phenomena of brains.

Color does not exist apart from a brain and they only exist as something experienced.

They are not a model of any phenomena. They are what a brain creates in response to phenomena. They are the result of a complete transformation and they tell us nothing about the causative stimulus.

 

[untermensche]

This thread is about how humans gain a scientific understanding of natural phenomena.

Can that be accomplished without a working testable model?

This is a direct response to those who claim we have a scientific understanding of consciousness but as I said it is very general.

If somebody says a scientific understanding can be gained without a model they should show some understanding of natural phenomena that we have without a model.

No. This thread is about the conditions for having some understanding of natural phenomena.

You didn't specify you meant scientific understanding.

Look again at your own OP here:

What does it take to say you have at least some understanding of natural phenomena?

This is specifically aimed at those who claim we can have an objective understanding of consciousness, but it is general as well.

Can we claim to have any understanding of a natural phenomena without at the very least a model?

What natural phenomena do we have some understanding of yet have no model?

And to be clear a model of consciousness is just some kind of explanation for how some kind of activity could result in the phenomena of having the ability to have a conscious animal experience.

A model is also something that can be tested and compared with collected data.

No clue in there that this was all about a scientific understanding.

You just moved the goal posts and you're not even prepared to admit to it.

Nothing new here, though.
EB

I specifically said this thread is a challenge to those who claim we have an understanding of consciousness.

What other understanding besides a scientific understanding do you imagine I was thinking of?

We live in a time where all understandings of natural phenomena are scientific understandings. We have abandoned the idea of spiritual or miraculous understandings.

Your criticism is misplaced.

 

[Speakpigeon]

About colours?! Did I say our colour system allowed us to understand something about colours?!

Again, you should pay more attention to what people actually say. Instead, you make up stories and respond to that.

The history of our "discussions" shows explaining to you is nearly always a waste of time.

In this instance, it's even worse. That our colour system is a model of some actual thing in the world around us will be pretty obvious to all and yet you say you don't understand. How come?

Of course, that it is a model is shown by the fact that colour vision is very, very useful to us to survive in our natural environment. How could it be useful at all without being a model of something real?

That you can't understand that on your own would justify explaining it to you. Except, as I said, it would very likely be a waste of my time.
EB

Colors are not a model of anything.

I explained this already.

Color is something evolved brains make whole. They are only a phenomena of brains.

Color does not exist apart from a brain and they only exist as something experienced.

They are not a model of any phenomena. They are what a brain creates in response to phenomena. They are the result of a complete transformation and they tell us nothing about the causative stimulus.

You're repeating yourself, so let's just repeat what I said:

Again, you should pay more attention to what people actually say. Instead, you make up stories and respond to that.

The history of our "discussions" shows explaining to you is nearly always a waste of time.
EB

And history here is just repeating itself.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I specifically said this thread is a challenge to those who claim we have an understanding of consciousness.

What other understanding besides a scientific understanding do you imagine I was thinking of?

We live in a time where all understandings of natural phenomena are scientific understandings. We have abandoned the idea of spiritual or miraculous understandings.

Your criticism is misplaced.

You just moved the goal posts and you're not even prepared to admit to it.

EB

 

[untermensche]

I specifically said this thread is a challenge to those who claim we have an understanding of consciousness.

What other understanding besides a scientific understanding do you imagine I was thinking of?

We live in a time where all understandings of natural phenomena are scientific understandings. We have abandoned the idea of spiritual or miraculous understandings.

Your criticism is misplaced.

You just moved the goal posts and you're not even prepared to admit to it.

EB

Clarifying a position for those who are clearly having trouble understanding it is hardly moving goalposts. My talking about the need of a model for consciousness should have been enough for a person to understand what I'm talking about.

Do you have anything to say about the need of a working testable model for human understanding?

Understanding that our understandings of natural phenomena are scientific not transcendental understandings.

 

[untermensche]

You're repeating yourself, so let's just repeat what I said:

Again, you should pay more attention to what people actually say. Instead, you make up stories and respond to that.

The history of our "discussions" shows explaining to you is nearly always a waste of time.
EB

And history here is just repeating itself.
EB

I've read what you wrote.

It does not seem responsive to the OP in any way.

Talking about color is a diversion. It has nothing to do with the topic.

It is something out of left field.

Again, this thread is about gaining an understand of natural phenomena and what is required.

We call our understandings of natural phenomena "science".

 

[Speakpigeon]

Clarifying a position for those who are clearly having trouble understanding it is hardly moving goalposts. My talking about the need of a model for consciousness should have been enough for a person to understand what I'm talking about.

Do you have anything to say about the need of a working testable model for human understanding?

Understanding that our understandings of natural phenomena are scientific not transcendental understandings.

You're just the ignoramus here. It is extremely usual when discussing mental life to talk of models that are not thought of as "scientific".

There was therefore no reason for anyone here to assume "scientific" was the key word. Until you shifted the goal posts without admitting to it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Here is where you first use the word "scientific" in this thread, page 2, post No. 23.

Your post shows you're unable to understand that all posters here use the term "model" in the usual sense, i.e. not necessarily "scientific".

And then, you can't even explain yourself properly. You should have specified at this point that you had meant "scientific", but this obviously would have required you to admit your OP was unclear.

Now, where in the definitions below is "scientific" used to define "model"? Nowhere. So, how would "model" somehow imply "scientific"?

n.
1. a standard or example for imitation or comparison.
2. a representation, generally in miniature, to show the construction or appearance of something.
3. an image in clay, wax, or the like, to be reproduced in more durable material.
4. a person or thing that serves as a subject for an artist, sculptor, writer, etc.
5. a person whose profession is posing for artists or photographers.
6. a person employed to wear clothing or pose with a product for purposes of display and advertising.
7. a style or design of a particular product.
8. a pattern or mode of structure or formation.
9. a typical form or style.
10. a simplified representation of a system or phenomenon, as in the sciences or economics, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon.
11. Logic, Math. an interpretation of a formal system in which all the theorems of that system are true.
adj.
12. serving as an example or model: a model home.
13. worthy to serve as a model; exemplary: a model student.
14. being a miniature version of something: model ships.
v.t.
15. to form or plan according to a model.
16. to give shape or form to; fashion.
17. to make a miniature model of.
18. to fashion in clay, wax, or the like.
19. to display to other persons or to prospective customers, esp. by wearing: to model dresses.
20. to use or include as an element in a larger construct: to model data into a forecast.
v.i.
21. to make models.
22. to produce designs in some plastic material.
23. to assume a typical or natural appearance, as the parts of a drawing in progress.
24. to serve or be employed as a model.

EB

 

[untermensche]

Clarifying a position for those who are clearly having trouble understanding it is hardly moving goalposts. My talking about the need of a model for consciousness should have been enough for a person to understand what I'm talking about.

Do you have anything to say about the need of a working testable model for human understanding?

Understanding that our understandings of natural phenomena are scientific not transcendental understandings.

You're just the ignoramus here. It is extremely usual when discussing mental life to talk of models that are not thought of as "scientific".

There was therefore no reason for anyone here to assume "scientific" was the key word. Until you shifted the goal posts without admitting to it.
EB

I am trying to discuss what is necessary to have an understanding of natural phenomena. That was made clear in the OP.

What other kinds of understandings of natural phenomena do you think there are besides scientific understandings?

Key word being "understanding".

 

[DBT]

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.

This thread is about how humans gain an understanding of natural phenomena.

We certainly can get around because of the "representations", not models, of the external world made by the brain.

But these representations do not give us understanding of any phenomena. They do allow us to survive within it.

This is about understanding natural phenomena, not being able to survive.

Ants can survive because of the representations made by their brains. But to say they have any understanding of natural phenomena because of these representations is absurd.

Ant brains are quite small, yet provide a sufficiently detailed representation of their environment to enable ants to negotiate its obstacles and challenges, build nests, find food, etc, in order to survive.

 

[untermensche]

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.

This thread is about how humans gain an understanding of natural phenomena.

We certainly can get around because of the "representations", not models, of the external world made by the brain.

But these representations do not give us understanding of any phenomena. They do allow us to survive within it.

This is about understanding natural phenomena, not being able to survive.

Ants can survive because of the representations made by their brains. But to say they have any understanding of natural phenomena because of these representations is absurd.

Ant brains are quite small, yet provide a sufficiently detailed representation of their environment to enable ants to negotiate its obstacles and challenges, build nests, find food, etc, in order to survive.

To experience a phenomena is not to understand it.

The ant falls to the ground because of gravity.

That is not an understanding of gravity.

What do humans use to understand gravity to the extent we understand it and can make predictions?

Hint: Our models. Our scientific models.

 

[DBT]

Ant brains are quite small, yet provide a sufficiently detailed representation of their environment to enable ants to negotiate its obstacles and challenges, build nests, find food, etc, in order to survive.

To experience a phenomena is not to understand it.

The ant falls to the ground because of gravity.

That is not an understanding of gravity.

What do humans use to understand gravity to the extent we understand it and can make predictions?

Hint: Our models. Our scientific models.

I wasn't talking about understanding how a brain forms conscious activity, but the understanding developed by animals in relation to their environment, using your example of Ants.

Plus it has been pointed out to you numerous times and by several posters including myself that even though it isn't understood HOW a brain forms consciousness, it is clear that the agency of consciousness is indeed that of a brain and its electrochemical information activity....the form and function of that consciousness takes being directly related to the architecture of the brain that is producing consciousness.....the conscious experience of an Ant being vastly different to that of a Human, for example.