Can we have understanding of natural phenomena without a model?

[untermensche]

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.

That is not an understanding of natural phenomena. It is just the experience of dealing with natural phenomena.

An "understanding" of natural phenomena is something only humans can have. And the way understandings are demonstrated are through the ability to predict future events.

And the way humans understand natural phenomena is with models.

The question is, Can we say there is any understanding in the absence of a working testable model?

Can somebody claim there is any scientific understanding of consciousness in the absence of a working testable model?

Or are such claims absolute nonsense?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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".

Oh, so now it's "understanding" the key word?

Still busy shifting the goal posts?

So now you drop "scientific" because, what, "understanding" implies "scientific" you think?!

Whoa!

So, presumably, you must believe that only scientists understand anything at all?

So, obviously, all the rest of us, something like 99.9% of the population, don't understand shit!?

Look here, and tell where in those definitions understanding is said to imply scientific?

understanding
n.
1.
a. The ability by which one understands; intelligence: concepts that are beyond the understanding of a child.
b. The quality or condition of one who understands; comprehension: Do you have much understanding of calculus? See Synonyms at reason.
2. Individual or specified judgment or outlook; opinion: In my understanding, this is a good plan.
3. A usually implicit agreement between two or more people or groups: an understanding between neighbors over late-night noise.
4. A disposition to appreciate or share the feelings and thoughts of others; sympathy: Can't you show some understanding for the poor child?
adj.
Characterized by or having good sense or compassion: an understanding teacher.
understandingly adv.

understanding
n.
1. the ability to learn, judge, make decisions, etc; intelligence or sense
2. personal opinion or interpretation of a subject: my understanding of your predicament.
3. a mutual agreement or compact, esp an informal or private one
4. chiefly Brit an unofficial engagement to be married
5. (Philosophy) philosophy archaic the mind, esp the faculty of reason
6. on the understanding that with the condition that; providing
adj.
7. sympathetic, tolerant, or wise towards people
8. possessing judgment and intelligence
understandingly adv

understanding
n.
1. the mental process of a person who understands; comprehension; personal interpretation.
2. intellectual faculties; intelligence.
3. knowledge of or familiarity with a particular thing.
4. a state of cooperation between people, nations, factions, etc.
5. a mutual agreement.
adj.
6. characterized by comprehension, empathy, or the like.

"Model", "scientific", "understanding"... All those beautiful words and you don't understand any of them! So sad.

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

 

[untermensche]

To understand natural phenomena is to understand why it occurs. That is the difference between mere experience of natural phenomena and understanding natural phenomena.

It is a specific kind of understanding.

And the question is: Can this special kind of understanding exist without a model?

That is the issue to be addressed, not the multitude of possible other definitions of words.

 

[Speakpigeon]

To understand natural phenomena is to understand why it occurs. That is the difference between mere experience of natural phenomena and understanding natural phenomena.

It is a specific kind of understanding.

So, presumably, you must believe that only scientists understand anything at all?

So, obviously, all the rest of us, something like 99.9% of the population, don't understand shit!?

And the question is: Can this special kind of understanding exist without a model?

I'm quite certain scientists have broadly the same mental model of reality as the rest of us. Things like the colour system all human brains have to rely on.

That is the issue to be addressed, not the multitude of possible other definitions of words.

You're just using your own private definitions for "model" and for "understanding" without realising everybody else understand these words differently.

I guess this certainly explains why you never agree with anything other people say.

It's just so fortunate that you should enjoy so much being in disagreement with everybody.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If we understand something about natural phenomena it is called science.

But we only have our scientific understandings within models.

If you know of some other way to gain scientific understanding without a model you will be addressing the OP.

 

[DBT]

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.

That is not an understanding of natural phenomena. It is just the experience of dealing with natural phenomena.

An "understanding" of natural phenomena is something only humans can have. And the way understandings are demonstrated are through the ability to predict future events.

And the way humans understand natural phenomena is with models.

The question is, Can we say there is any understanding in the absence of a working testable model?

Can somebody claim there is any scientific understanding of consciousness in the absence of a working testable model?

Or are such claims absolute nonsense?

You are still running with the fallacy, that because we don't know how a brain forms conscious experience that we don't know anything about the brain and its role and function.

That is not true, we don't need to know or understand everything in order to know or understand something.

We know that chemical changes to the brain alter consciousness, as does electrical stimulation of brain regions in quite specific ways, we know that memory function enables recognition, coherent thought, self identity, language, motor skills, knowledge, etc, and that without it consciousness falls apart...

 

[Speakpigeon]

If we understand something about natural phenomena it is called science.

More obfuscation.

You really like your own private definitions.

People have survived in their natural environment for hundreds of thousands of years without science. They've invented agriculture, they've travelled around the world.

Talking to you is just a waste of time.

But we only have our scientific understandings within models.

Who knows what you mean here?

You're having a private conversation with yourself.

If you know of some other way to gain scientific understanding without a model you will be addressing the OP.

Still more obfuscation.




Here is my response to this thread:

Can we have understanding of natural phenomena without a model?

No.

Human beings start out with basic models such as their colour system, which gives them a very basic understanding of their environment.

They only increase their understanding buy building up more models, throughout their personal lives, through cooperation with other human beings, and through successive generations of human beings.

Science is just one more of these models. One which is more accurate. Crucially, there's no practical substitute to science.

But just as crucially, people were only able to start making proper science because they'd had the benefit of a large number of prescientific models, including for example our innate colour system.

And, just as crucially, we can't possibly use science for everything we do in life, it just wouldn't be practical. So, we all have to rely, including scientists themselves, on a variety of our prescientific personal and social models to understand our environment, including the natural world.



Given your extensive use of private definitions, I don't expect you to understand.

Clearly, you don't have the model for that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

we know that memory function enables recognition, coherent thought, self identity, language, motor skills, knowledge, etc, and that without it consciousness falls apart...

It's my experience that you can still be minimally conscious without remembering anything at all.

Still, I would grant you that you still need to be able to memorise such an episode of minimal consciousness to remember it afterwards.



And of course, this is just another example of understanding done without the support of science.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If we understand something about natural phenomena it is called science.

More obfuscation.

You really like your own private definitions.

People have survived in their natural environment for hundreds of thousands of years without science. They've invented agriculture, they've travelled around the world....

Is that what we call science? Growing something or traveling? Is that an understanding of natural phenomena or just working with nature?

Talk about having a private definition.

How exactly do you define "science"?

 

[untermensche]

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.

That is not an understanding of natural phenomena. It is just the experience of dealing with natural phenomena.

An "understanding" of natural phenomena is something only humans can have. And the way understandings are demonstrated are through the ability to predict future events.

And the way humans understand natural phenomena is with models.

The question is, Can we say there is any understanding in the absence of a working testable model?

Can somebody claim there is any scientific understanding of consciousness in the absence of a working testable model?

Or are such claims absolute nonsense?

You are still running with the fallacy, that because we don't know how a brain forms conscious experience that we don't know anything about the brain and its role and function.

The point of this thread is to show that if you don't have a working testable model you can't claim to understand natural phenomena.

What is your working testable model of how consciousness is achieved? This would prove you at least have some idea what it is.

Why do you think you are special and do not need a working testable model to make claims about natural phenomena?

You can't claim to understand the first thing about what consciousness is or could do without at least a testable model of it. Something we could apply some data to as opposed to just taking your word.

 

[Kharakov]

The point of this thread is to show that if you don't have a working testable model you can't claim to understand natural phenomena.

Ohh, I thought you were going for infinite regress to "you can't have a working testable model of models without a working testable model of models". In other words, we must have a model of models to understand models.

Now either this model of models came together like an infinite series adding up to 1, without us having to specifically add in every fucking term of the series, or we started out with a model of models that we used to determine whether a model was a model, or our model of models was an accurate model of models.

Model.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If we understand something about natural phenomena it is called science.

More obfuscation.

You really like your own private definitions.

People have survived in their natural environment for hundreds of thousands of years without science. They've invented agriculture, they've travelled around the world....

Is that what we call science?

???

Just how well do you understand English?!

Beats me.

Growing something or traveling? Is that an understanding of natural phenomena or just working with nature?

That's a matter of personal opinion.

You say one thing and very nearly everybody else say the other.

Talk about having a private definition.

If that was so it would be easy for you to exhibit the definition of a dictionary showing I'm wrong.

But, precisely, you don't provide dictionary definitions. You prefer your own private ones.

How exactly do you define "science"?

science
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena: new advances in science and technology.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena: the science of astronomy.

Suits me fine.
EB

 

[DBT]

we know that memory function enables recognition, coherent thought, self identity, language, motor skills, knowledge, etc, and that without it consciousness falls apart...

It's my experience that you can still be minimally conscious without remembering anything at all.

Still, I would grant you that you still need to be able to memorise such an episode of minimal consciousness to remember it afterwards.



And of course, this is just another example of understanding done without the support of science.
EB

Memory function involves far more than just remembering things. Amongst other functions, self identity, language, etc, memory enables recognition. Without recognition, which is a form of memory, consciousness as we experience it is impossible.

 

[DBT]

You are still running with the fallacy, that because we don't know how a brain forms conscious experience that we don't know anything about the brain and its role and function.

The point of this thread is to show that if you don't have a working testable model you can't claim to understand natural phenomena.

What is your working testable model of how consciousness is achieved? This would prove you at least have some idea what it is.

Why do you think you are special and do not need a working testable model to make claims about natural phenomena?

You can't claim to understand the first thing about what consciousness is or could do without at least a testable model of it. Something we could apply some data to as opposed to just taking your word.

Just more bluff and bluster....I said that because we don't know something, how a brain forms consciousness, it doesn't mean that we don't understand anything about brain function.

That is your fallacy, instead of facing your fallacy, you attempt to switch focus onto me, or just repeat your ''we know nothing'' line.

It doesn't work. We know enough about brain function to be clear on the point that it is indeed the brain that forms consciousness even if we don't know how consciousness is formed by the brain. Which is something rather than nothing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

we know that memory function enables recognition, coherent thought, self identity, language, motor skills, knowledge, etc, and that without it consciousness falls apart...

It's my experience that you can still be minimally conscious without remembering anything at all.

Still, I would grant you that you still need to be able to memorise such an episode of minimal consciousness to remember it afterwards.



And of course, this is just another example of understanding done without the support of science.
EB

Memory function involves far more than just remembering things. Amongst other functions, self identity, language, etc, memory enables recognition. Without recognition, which is a form of memory, consciousness as we experience it is impossible.

I remember experiencing it, so I'm very unlikely to agree with you here.

Your experience against mine. Only our personal experiences. There's no science on this.
EB

 

[DBT]

Memory function involves far more than just remembering things. Amongst other functions, self identity, language, etc, memory enables recognition. Without recognition, which is a form of memory, consciousness as we experience it is impossible.

I remember experiencing it, so I'm very unlikely to agree with you here.

Your experience against mine. Only our personal experiences. There's no science on this.
EB

The consequences of memory function failure can observed in the behaviour of those who are suffering from the condition.

 

[untermensche]

How exactly do you define "science"?

science
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena: new advances in science and technology.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena: the science of astronomy.

Suits me fine.
EB

Science is something a person has to learn. Nobody is born with the knowledge.

Science is how we try to explain natural phenomena.

And all scientific understandings take place within models.

That is why you can't produce a scientific understanding without one.

Looking at the apple fall is not having a model for why the apple falls.

The only rational rebuttal to my point is to produce a scientific understanding that is not part of a model.

What you are doing is avoiding the issue with all your might. Not dealing with it rationally or productively.

- - - Updated - - -

You are still running with the fallacy, that because we don't know how a brain forms conscious experience that we don't know anything about the brain and its role and function.

The point of this thread is to show that if you don't have a working testable model you can't claim to understand natural phenomena.

What is your working testable model of how consciousness is achieved? This would prove you at least have some idea what it is.

Why do you think you are special and do not need a working testable model to make claims about natural phenomena?

You can't claim to understand the first thing about what consciousness is or could do without at least a testable model of it. Something we could apply some data to as opposed to just taking your word.

Just more bluff and bluster....I said that because we don't know something, how a brain forms consciousness, it doesn't mean that we don't understand anything about brain function.

That is your fallacy, instead of facing your fallacy, you attempt to switch focus onto me, or just repeat your ''we know nothing'' line.

It doesn't work. We know enough about brain function to be clear on the point that it is indeed the brain that forms consciousness even if we don't know how consciousness is formed by the brain. Which is something rather than nothing.

Your response is nothing but your typical handwaving and bluster.

Show me how we have an understanding of natural phenomena without a model or move on. You are not addressing anything, just howling to the moon.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Memory function involves far more than just remembering things. Amongst other functions, self identity, language, etc, memory enables recognition. Without recognition, which is a form of memory, consciousness as we experience it is impossible.

I remember experiencing it, so I'm very unlikely to agree with you here.

Your experience against mine. Only our personal experiences. There's no science on this.
EB

The consequences of memory function failure can observed in the behaviour of those who are suffering from the condition.

My experience is that consciousness is possible even in the absence of any memory, including of language, self identity, whatever.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Suits me fine.
EB

Science is something a person has to learn. Nobody is born with the knowledge.

Science is how we try to explain natural phenomena.

And all scientific understandings take place within models.

That is why you can't produce a scientific understanding without one.

Looking at the apple fall is not having a model for why the apple falls.

The only rational rebuttal to my point is to produce a scientific understanding that is not part of a model.

What you are doing is avoiding the issue with all your might. Not dealing with it rationally or productively.

I understand the question in the OP to be as follows:

Can we understand natural phenomena without using a model?

I already replied to that.

Everything we understand of the world around us, and how we understand it, is based on our own private model of reality we have in our mind.

This model is built progressively over time, as we grow up, and develops through real-life experience from the starting point of the various innate cognitive systems we normally have as human neonates, such as for example our colour system, which allows us to have a visual representation, i.e. a visual model, of our environment.

I can only assume that people who would be somehow deprived of any such innate cognitive systems would be unable to understand anything of their natural environment, unless they would be provided with some artificial substitutes.

As human, we don't have any other experience. So, whether it's possible for a human being to understand reality at all without some kind of model is something humans cannot know.

However, if we assume that humans are essentially just a component part of the entire universe, and if we accept that there would have been no model of reality at the time of the Big Bang, one could argue that the universe itself did produce, through us, an understanding of natural phenomena and this without having a model, at least initially. So, if the universe did it, it shows it's possible to do it. Even if it took 13.7 billion years to produce it.


Further, I think there's no substantial difference between our understanding and whatever model we have. Our understanding is our model itself. And that goes for anything we understand, not just natural phenomena.

So, perhaps, there's no way we will ever understand the hard problem of consciousness, because essentially, we don't have a model for it and we won't ever have one. At least not as I can see that we could.

The reason that we don't have a model for it may be that consciousness didn't play any part in the evolution of life on Earth.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Suits me fine.
EB

Science is something a person has to learn. Nobody is born with the knowledge.

Science is how we try to explain natural phenomena.

And all scientific understandings take place within models.

That is why you can't produce a scientific understanding without one.

Looking at the apple fall is not having a model for why the apple falls.

The only rational rebuttal to my point is to produce a scientific understanding that is not part of a model.

What you are doing is avoiding the issue with all your might. Not dealing with it rationally or productively.

I understand the question in the OP to be as follows:

Can we understand natural phenomena without using a model?

I already replied to that.

Everything we understand of the world around us, and how we understand it, is based on our own private model of reality we have in our mind.

And I told you that is a very different definition of "model" and it is not an understanding of natural phenomena.

What a person understands when they observe natural phenomena are the representations of that phenomena created by the brain.

To actually understand the phenomena requires a model. And not the kind of "model" you are talking about.