• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Can we have understanding of natural phenomena without a model?

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

Sounds like more unconsciousness than consciousness....however there must have been a degree of consciousness, which entails recognition, if you felt anxiety.

Without memory function anxiety cannot be recognized as anxiety, just another unidentifiable sensation, senseless unrecognizable shapes, events and feelings.

That you could recall anything at all about your experience implies that what little was happening in the way of consciousness was being recorded....or else upon coming to your senses your brain filled in the blank as a means of making sense of the temporary dysfunction, perhaps a post hoc rationalization. Too little information to even make an informed guess.
 
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

It is rambling and all over the place.

It starts with a lie:

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.

We have no "private models" of experience, we have experiences. They are whole and not in need of explanation. You cannot just say this you have to prove it first.

It does not address the OP in any way.

The OP is about how we arrive at scientific understandings of natural phenomena.

How do we arrive at scientific understandings without a model? That is the issue.

It is meant to address all those who claim to have a scientific understanding of consciousness yet have no working model for how it is created. They have no scientific understanding of the phenomena of consciousness.

We all have an understanding of the experience of having a consciousness. But that is not a scientific understanding of the phenomena of consciousness. A scientific understanding is knowing how some activity results in consciousness. We don't even know which activity results in consciousness no less have a scientific understanding of consciousness.
 
Last edited:
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

Sounds like more unconsciousness than consciousness....

What I remember definitely does not look like it was unconsciousness.

If anything, it may even suggest that unconsciousness is in fact bare consciousness rather than no consciousness at all as usually assumed. True unconsciousness may well not exist at all. Maybe what usually happens in case of fainting is that memorising shuts down before you get to a state of bare consciousness.

however there must have been a degree of consciousness, which entails recognition, if you felt anxiety.

There was no recognition at all on the moment. Recognition came only afterwards, from what I was able to remember.

Same thing for the recognition that I was conscious at the time, if only minimally. I am able to tell now from what I remember. Perhaps, as you say, by comparison with my memory of the usual experience of being conscious.

And I think I would have been able to tell without the bit about anxiety.

Also, anxiety definitely still feels like anxiety even if all memory functions have shut down. It's just that you can't tell it's something you know. You can't spell out it's anxiety. But it still feels the way anxiety does.

That you could recall anything at all about your experience implies that what little was happening in the way of consciousness was being recorded....

That's my default assumption.

or else upon coming to your senses your brain filled in the blank as a means of making sense of the temporary dysfunction, perhaps a post hoc rationalization.

That's what sounds like post hoc rationalisation to me.

Too little information to even make an informed guess.

No. More than enough, certainly for me as first hand witness.

Only too little to be absolutely certain, which is very different.
EB
 
It is rambling and all over the place.

You tell me. You're the chief specialist here.

It starts with a lie:

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.

You should learn English prior to accusing people of lying.

You may disagree with what I say, but it's definitely not a lie. It doesn't even make sense to talk of a lie here.

We have no "private models" of experience, we have experiences.

You are again and again fabricating stories. I never talked of "model of experience".

You're just a waste of time.

They are whole and not in need of explanation. You cannot just say this you have to prove it first.

You are again and again fabricating stories. I never talked of our experiences as in need of explanations.

You're just a waste of time.

It does not address the OP in any way.

The OP is about how we arrive at scientific understandings of natural phenomena.

How do we arrive at scientific understandings without a model? That is the issue.

It is meant to address all those who claim to have a scientific understanding of consciousness yet have no working model for how it is created. They have no scientific understanding of the phenomena of consciousness.

We all have an understanding of the experience of having a consciousness. But that is not a scientific understanding of the phenomena of consciousness. A scientific understanding is knowing how some activity results in consciousness. We don't even know which activity results in consciousness no less have a scientific understanding of consciousness.

It's very easy for anyone to check that I properly addressed the OP on the basis of its wording.

You're now trying to re-interpret you own OP but it's too late.

Grow up, assume your clumsiness and start a new thread with the new wording.

Oh, well, I guess it must be too late for you to grow up now. Too bad.
EB
 
I am explaining the OP to you.

Not changing it in any way.

Calling an experience a model is a lie.

They are not a model of anything. They are complete and do not explain anything and are not in need of explanation.

A person does not understand the experience of blue. They just have it.

Understanding takes place only in a mind.
 
I am explaining the OP to you.

I understood the OP alright.

If you don't like the way people understand what you put out there, then just improve the way you express yourself.

You could start by learning English and by using the same meaning for words as everybody else.

That's probably all too overwhelming for you to even start.

Not changing it in any way.

You don't understand English the way competent speakers do.

Calling an experience a model is a lie.

You are again and again fabricating stories.

I never called experience a model.

You're just a waste of time.

They are not a model of anything. They are complete and do not explain anything and are not in need of explanation.

You are again and again fabricating stories.

I never talked of our experiences as in need of explanations.

You're just a waste of time.

A person does not understand the experience of blue. They just have it.

You are again and again fabricating stories.

I never discussed people understanding their experience of blue.

You're just a waste of time.

Understanding takes place only in a mind.

Not yours.
EB
 
Since I am unable to see where you ever address the OP as explained to you we are done unless you actually present something beyond what you have already presented. It is not on topic.

The issue is the need for models to have a scientific understanding of natural phenomena.

If you know a way to have a scientific understanding of natural phenomena without a model you will be addressing the OP for the first time.
 
What scientific understandings do we have that are not understandings within a model?

What is pure modeless understanding of natural phenomena?

That sounds like relgion.
 
Sounds like more unconsciousness than consciousness....

What I remember definitely does not look like it was unconsciousness.

If anything, it may even suggest that unconsciousness is in fact bare consciousness rather than no consciousness at all as usually assumed. True unconsciousness may well not exist at all. Maybe what usually happens in case of fainting is that memorising shuts down before you get to a state of bare consciousness.

however there must have been a degree of consciousness, which entails recognition, if you felt anxiety.

There was no recognition at all on the moment. Recognition came only afterwards, from what I was able to remember.

Same thing for the recognition that I was conscious at the time, if only minimally. I am able to tell now from what I remember. Perhaps, as you say, by comparison with my memory of the usual experience of being conscious.

And I think I would have been able to tell without the bit about anxiety.

Also, anxiety definitely still feels like anxiety even if all memory functions have shut down. It's just that you can't tell it's something you know. You can't spell out it's anxiety. But it still feels the way anxiety does.

That you could recall anything at all about your experience implies that what little was happening in the way of consciousness was being recorded....

That's my default assumption.

or else upon coming to your senses your brain filled in the blank as a means of making sense of the temporary dysfunction, perhaps a post hoc rationalization.

That's what sounds like post hoc rationalisation to me.

Too little information to even make an informed guess.

No. More than enough, certainly for me as first hand witness.

Only too little to be absolutely certain, which is very different.
EB

Well, it is your experience so there is not much I can say, except try to point out that if there was no memory function operating during your collapse you would not be able to recall your experience....so, logically, some aspect of the event must have been recorded in order for you to be able to remember the experience at all.

''Memory is typically modeled after perception. "Remembering" and "perceiving" are considered to be success terms because if one remembers an event, then the event happened; and if one perceives an object, then the object is accurately represented. Analogously, misremembering an event is similar to illusory perception—there is some perceptual information present, but it is being misrepresented. And then there are hallucinations, which are analogous to full confabulations because they are not simply misrepresentations but unconstrained mental fabrications in the absence of stimuli. Accordingly, misremembering and confabulating are forms of malfunctioning, the latter being worse. This analogy between perception and memory is straightforward, but it can’t be right for several reasons.

First, scientific evidence shows that this analogy cannot be the whole story. Memories are not retrieved from long-term memory always in the same way and with the exact same information. Rather, there is a constructive process that reconsolidates them at retrieval and storage (Lane et al., 2015). Procedural and implicit forms of memory are very accurate and allow us to do things like play tennis or ride a bicycle, but healthy individuals tend to systematically confabulate details about their personal lives. In fact, healthy patients systematically distort these personal memories—significantly more than patients with memory impairments like amnesia (Schacter et al., 1996). Unlike the perceptual case, memory distortion (at least concerning autobiographical memory) is not pathological or simply a malfunction, but it is very likely beneficial because the purpose of the memory system is not only to store information about past actions and events but also to make sense of the past in insightful ways.

''Memory is an important component of conscious experience, feeding its content with details about the past and personal meaning. Consciousness is not simply perceptual information maintained temporarily in working memory, although that does occupy a great deal of conscious experience. It is a collection of systems that work together to produce the useful, and sometimes not so useful, contents of awareness.''

''Recognition, in psychology, a form of remembering characterized by a feeling of familiarity when something previously experienced is again encountered; in such situations a correct response can be identified when presented but may not be reproduced in the absence of such a stimulus. Recognizing a familiar face without being able to recall the person’s name is a common example. Recognition seems to indicate selective retention and forgetting of certain elements of experience. Controlled tests of recognition have been used by experimental psychologists since the late 19th century to give insight into the processes of human memory. Compare recall.''
 
Well, it is your experience so there is not much I can say, except try to point out that if there was no memory function operating during your collapse you would not be able to recall your experience....so, logically, some aspect of the event must have been recorded in order for you to be able to remember the experience at all.

''Memory is typically modeled after perception. "Remembering" and "perceiving" are considered to be success terms because if one remembers an event, then the event happened; and if one perceives an object, then the object is accurately represented. Analogously, misremembering an event is similar to illusory perception—there is some perceptual information present, but it is being misrepresented. And then there are hallucinations, which are analogous to full confabulations because they are not simply misrepresentations but unconstrained mental fabrications in the absence of stimuli. Accordingly, misremembering and confabulating are forms of malfunctioning, the latter being worse. This analogy between perception and memory is straightforward, but it can’t be right for several reasons.

First, scientific evidence shows that this analogy cannot be the whole story. Memories are not retrieved from long-term memory always in the same way and with the exact same information. Rather, there is a constructive process that reconsolidates them at retrieval and storage (Lane et al., 2015). Procedural and implicit forms of memory are very accurate and allow us to do things like play tennis or ride a bicycle, but healthy individuals tend to systematically confabulate details about their personal lives. In fact, healthy patients systematically distort these personal memories—significantly more than patients with memory impairments like amnesia (Schacter et al., 1996). Unlike the perceptual case, memory distortion (at least concerning autobiographical memory) is not pathological or simply a malfunction, but it is very likely beneficial because the purpose of the memory system is not only to store information about past actions and events but also to make sense of the past in insightful ways.

''Memory is an important component of conscious experience, feeding its content with details about the past and personal meaning. Consciousness is not simply perceptual information maintained temporarily in working memory, although that does occupy a great deal of conscious experience. It is a collection of systems that work together to produce the useful, and sometimes not so useful, contents of awareness.''

''Recognition, in psychology, a form of remembering characterized by a feeling of familiarity when something previously experienced is again encountered; in such situations a correct response can be identified when presented but may not be reproduced in the absence of such a stimulus. Recognizing a familiar face without being able to recall the person’s name is a common example. Recognition seems to indicate selective retention and forgetting of certain elements of experience. Controlled tests of recognition have been used by experimental psychologists since the late 19th century to give insight into the processes of human memory. Compare recall.''

Yes, I understand and accept all of that.

However, there's nothing in there which could be seen as in any way specific to the experience I just described. All of it is applicable in exactly the same way to everything we do all day long. Why should we even trust to know who we are? Yet, we do, most of us, anyway.
EB
 
Why should we even trust to know who we are? Yet, we do, most of us, anyway.
EB

Isn't that trust being confirmed through our interactions with other people, family, friends, organizations, banks, etc, thereby justifying trust in our self identity?

That's for each of us to decide if it's good enough.

Me, I think it's only good enough as long as I don't have a clue how to do otherwise.
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom