Can we have understanding of natural phenomena without a model?

[Speakpigeon]

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

Different from what?

Answer: Different from the one you insist on using, i.e. your privately made-up personal definition no one else ever used.

Me, I prefer to use the ordinary definition of "model":

model
n.
3. A schematic description or representation of something, especially a system or phenomenon, that accounts for its properties and is used to study its characteristics: a model of generative grammar; a model of an atom; an economic model.

And I told you: This model we have in our mind is in itself our understanding of natural phenomena.

So, each of us has his own model, and this one model only. To believe that there's another model is profoundly mistaken, and more accurately, just very naive.

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

Big deal. Everything we have in mind is created by the brain, or more properly, a property of the brain.

To actually understand the phenomena requires a model.

Yes, as far as we can make out. That's what I said.

And not the kind of "model" you are talking about.

There's no other kind of model inside our mind. And the kind of model I described is the only model that's available to our mind.

______________________________

My conclusion is that you don't have the model to understand what I say. Or what anybody says for that matter.

No great news here, I knew trying to explain anything to you would be a waste of my time.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Different from what?

Answer: Different from the one you insist on using, i.e. your privately made-up personal definition no one else ever used.

I assure you I am not the one who invented the distinction between a scientific model and whatever you are talking about.

Me, I prefer to use the ordinary definition of "model":

That is fine is we totally ignore how scientific knowledge exists.

If we do not focus one bit on the OP that conclusion is possible.

Having some obscure definition of a scientific model is not addressing the OP.

And I told you: This model we have in our mind is in itself our understanding of natural phenomena.

What do we understand about any natural phenomena by experiencing "blue"?

Do we even have the slightest clue why we experience "blue" merely by experiencing it?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I assure you I am not the one who invented the distinction between a scientific model and whatever you are talking about.
That is fine is we totally ignore how scientific knowledge exists.
If we do not focus one bit on the OP that conclusion is possible.
Having some obscure definition of a scientific model is not addressing the OP.

Show me in the OP where it is you say "scientific model".

You're not even in line with your own OP.

It's no use talking to you.

What do we understand about any natural phenomena by experiencing "blue"?
Do we even have the slightest clue why we experience "blue" merely by experiencing it?

Show me where I claim that experiencing "blue" is to understand something.

You're just fabricating stories.

You're definitely unable to maintain a sensible discussion.

I will have tried.
EB

 

[Elixir]

Understanding a natural phenomenon IS a model. It may reside only between the ears of the understanding entity, but it is a model nonetheless. Like any model, it is inaccurate but potentially useful.
Another nonsensical pseudo-philosophical non-question.

 

[untermensche]

I assure you I am not the one who invented the distinction between a scientific model and whatever you are talking about.
That is fine is we totally ignore how scientific knowledge exists.
If we do not focus one bit on the OP that conclusion is possible.
Having some obscure definition of a scientific model is not addressing the OP.

Show me in the OP where it is you say "scientific model".

You're not even in line with your own OP.

It's no use talking to you.

What do we understand about any natural phenomena by experiencing "blue"?
Do we even have the slightest clue why we experience "blue" merely by experiencing it?

Show me where I claim that experiencing "blue" is to understand something.

You're just fabricating stories.

I'm trying to apply flesh to your position you want to keep hidden.

What are you talking about?

Why will you not address the OP as it has been explained to you more than once?

This issue is how do we claim to have a scientific understanding of natural phenomena?

Can we claim to have a scientific understanding absent a model?

What is the basis of the scientific understanding if there is no model?

 

[untermensche]

Understanding a natural phenomenon IS a model. It may reside only between the ears of the understanding entity, but it is a model nonetheless. Like any model, it is inaccurate but potentially useful.
Another nonsensical pseudo-philosophical non-question.

What is between your ears, what you experience, are representations of natural phenomena created by the brain.

They are not an explanation of any natural phenomena. No natural phenomena is understood because a human has experience. Experiences are the result of a transformation of one kind of information into a totally different kind of information. They are not models. They are transformations.

 

[Elixir]

Understanding a natural phenomenon IS a model. It may reside only between the ears of the understanding entity, but it is a model nonetheless. Like any model, it is inaccurate but potentially useful.
Another nonsensical pseudo-philosophical non-question.

What is between your ears, what you experience, are representations of natural phenomena...

Representations of natural phenomena are what we call "models".

They are not an explanation of any natural phenomena.

No shit? Models are not explanations, they are representations.

No natural phenomena is understood because a human has experience. Experiences are the result of a transformation of one kind of information into a totally different kind of information. They are not models. They are transformations.

That looks like word salad. Probably something intended that was so far beyond my feeble comprehension as to make it look like word salad to me. Were we talking about experiences or understanding?
"Kinds of information"? No, it is still Shannon Information AFAICS. Channel capacity changes, but the information itself is still what it is.

 

[untermensche]

No shit? Models are not explanations, they are representations.

They use representations but the purpose is to explain and gain understanding.

Mere representation does not explain or give understanding.

Scientific modelling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

 

[DBT]

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

Are you considering the different types and functions of memory? What about recognition? Are you saying that you have experienced consciousness without the function and presence of recognition?

 

[DBT]

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.

So you complain about bluff and bluster, an assertion, even while engaging with bluff and bluster but never seeing the irony of your own position. Hilarious.

 

[untermensche]

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.

So you complain about bluff and bluster, an assertion, even while engaging with bluff and bluster but never seeing the irony of your own position. Hilarious.

I am asking you to provide some substance by addressing the OP.

What can be known about natural phenomena without a model?

Without a model data is just random nothingness. Anything can be said about the data but none of what is said can actually be tested.

I can claim consciousness can do this and can do that but minus a model none of it can be tested.

All we have are the experiences and no reason to think we are being tricked. When we believe we are initiating something with the "will" in the "mind" there is no reason to believe we are not.

Unless there is some model that explains why we are mistaken. Not just a bunch of claims based on random data applied to no model.

 

[DBT]

You ignore anything that is said or provided if you don't happen to agree with it. You do this in order to maintain your own assumptions. I could repeat what I have already said and provided, but what's the point? What would change? It would be the same result as the first time, the second time and every time after, you dismiss whatever is said or provided and repeat your questions and assertions....

 

[Elixir]

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

Are you considering the different types and functions of memory? What about recognition? Are you saying that you have experienced consciousness without the function and presence of recognition?

Yeah, that's why we all recall our months in the womb so vividly.
There's no discussion with this guy - he just spews stream of (what passes for ) consciousness. "I said Models are not explanations, they are representations."
To which he replied "They use representations but the purpose is to explain and gain understanding."
When was the last time YOU saw a model USE representations to gain understanding? Models don't understand ANYTHING.
I'm over trying to make sense of his posts - might just be a language barrier thing.

 

[untermensche]

You ignore anything that is said or provided if you don't happen to agree with it. You do this in order to maintain your own assumptions. I could repeat what I have already said and provided, but what's the point? What would change? It would be the same result as the first time, the second time and every time after, you dismiss whatever is said or provided and repeat your questions and assertions....

You refuse to address the OP.

The topic is the need for models to have understandings of natural phenomena.

Experiences are not understandings.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Show me in the OP where it is you say "scientific model".
You're not even in line with your own OP.
It's no use talking to you.
Show me where I claim that experiencing "blue" is to understand something.
You're just fabricating stories.

I'm trying to apply flesh to your position you want to keep hidden.
What are you talking about?
Why will you not address the OP as it has been explained to you more than once?

I already did but you keep forgetting.

So, here it is again.

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

See?

This issue is how do we claim to have a scientific understanding of natural phenomena?
Can we claim to have a scientific understanding absent a model?
What is the basis of the scientific understanding if there is no model?

Sorry, I have to repeat myself again:

Show me in the OP where it is you say "scientific model".
You're not even in line with your own OP.
It's no use talking to you.
Show me where I claim that experiencing "blue" is to understand something.
You're just fabricating stories.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Are you considering the different types and functions of memory? What about recognition? Are you saying that you have experienced consciousness without the function and presence of recognition?

I had no perception at all, so I can't answer that. However, I couldn't even remember who I was, or even what sort of thing I was! So my guess is that recognition wouldn't have been possible either.

The only function of memory that was operational was memorising what was happening on the moment. At least, that's my assumption since I was able to remember the episode afterwards, and fairly vividly. I have no reason to doubt what I remember of it.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You made that post before.

There is nothing in it that comes close to addressing the OP as it has been explained to you.

Reposting it will not accomplish anything.

If you think there is a salient argument in it somewhere make the argument concisely in a way that can be comprehended.

 

[DBT]

You ignore anything that is said or provided if you don't happen to agree with it. You do this in order to maintain your own assumptions. I could repeat what I have already said and provided, but what's the point? What would change? It would be the same result as the first time, the second time and every time after, you dismiss whatever is said or provided and repeat your questions and assertions....

You refuse to address the OP.

The topic is the need for models to have understandings of natural phenomena.

Experiences are not understandings.

Correction, you claim that I 'refuse to address the OP' - meanwhile ignoring whatever I happen to say that does not suit your assumptions..

- - - Updated - - -

Are you considering the different types and functions of memory? What about recognition? Are you saying that you have experienced consciousness without the function and presence of recognition?

I had no perception at all, so I can't answer that. However, I couldn't even remember who I was, or even what sort of thing I was! So my guess is that recognition wouldn't have been possible either.

The only function of memory that was operational was memorising what was happening on the moment. At least, that's my assumption since I was able to remember the episode afterwards, and fairly vividly. I have no reason to doubt what I remember of it.
EB

What do you remember of it? Can you describe your experience?

 

[Speakpigeon]

You made that post before.

There is nothing in it that comes close to addressing the OP as it has been explained to you.

Reposting it will not accomplish anything.

If you think there is a salient argument in it somewhere make the argument concisely in a way that can be comprehended.

The argument is already as concise as can be. I'm sorry you're unable to get it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you considering the different types and functions of memory? What about recognition? Are you saying that you have experienced consciousness without the function and presence of recognition?

I had no perception at all, so I can't answer that. However, I couldn't even remember who I was, or even what sort of thing I was! So my guess is that recognition wouldn't have been possible either.
The only function of memory that was operational was memorising what was happening on the moment. At least, that's my assumption since I was able to remember the episode afterwards, and fairly vividly. I have no reason to doubt what I remember of it.
EB

What do you remember of it? Can you describe your experience?

I had woken up in the middle of the night with back pain and I had to take a leak. I fainted in the loo because of the pain.

All I can remember of what happened before I finally came by is as follows:
1. I was minimally or barely conscious
2. Darkness
3. Slight anxiety

Nothing else, even though I was very uncomfortably crumpled on the floor at the time, with back pain and the light on just above me.

The episode seems now to have lasted only a few seconds, perhaps 20s at most, but that may be a false impression. I had no sense of time on the moment.

I guess you normally end up totally unconscious once you've fainted. So, I assume that the bit I can remember was somewhere at the beginning the fainting. I may have stayed properly unconscious for several minutes after that for all I know.
EB