Do minds exist?

[Juma]

Absolutely not.

What are we missing?

a lot. observing and understanding gravity
requires much more than dropping a stone.

It is the full expression of gravity.

What is? A dropped stone? Oh no , far from it. First you should record the time of the fall. You should use stones of different weights. You should somehow estimate the effect of air resistance. Etc. Aplying maths and logics may, or may not, enable the researcher to find some equations that models the motion of the stone. It will be a big leap from that to actually realize that it is the mass of the earth that pulls on the mass of the stone...
And yet bigger to realize the general theory of relativity.

 

[untermensche]

What are we missing?

a lot. observing and understanding gravity
requires much more than dropping a stone.

It is the full expression of gravity in that context. There is nothing more.

Our human explanations are much less complete than the actual experience.

It is the full expression of gravity.

What is? A dropped stone? Oh no , far from it. First you should record the time of the fall. You should use stones of different weights. You should somehow estimate the effect of air resistance. Etc. Aplying maths and logics may, or may not, enable the researcher to find some equations that models the motion of the stone. It will be a big leap from that to actually realize that it is the mass of the earth that pulls on the mass of the stone...
And yet bigger to realize the general theory of relativity.

You are not talking about the expression of gravity. What gravity really is.

You're talking about human incomplete models.

I remember when Freeman Dyson said that some scientists don't know the difference between the models and the real thing.

The models are always less than the real thing in completeness.

 

[bilby]

It doesn't matter what world you are in; if you drop an object and it falls to the ground, then given that information alone, it is premature to conclude that gravity exists.

You're nuts.

We know very well why the rock falls.

You are so desperate to criticize you look foolish.

We - from our godlike point of view outside the thought experiment - know very well why the rock falls. But not simply because we saw a rock fall. You are cheating - the information provided in the experiment is insufficient, so you are using additional knowledge, unavailable in the scenario, to reach a conclusion.

It doesn't matter what world you are in; if you drop an object and it falls to the ground, then given that information alone, it is premature to conclude that gravity exists. More information is needed, in order for that conclusion to be the only viable possibility.

It is impossible to tell the difference between a situation where a rock is attracted by the mass of the Earth, and a situation where a massless (or very low mass) Earth consists of a surface that is accelerating in the 'up' direction at 9.81m.s^-2, and thereby catches up to the rock.

Your putative ignorant New Guinean jungle dweller would be perfectly justified in believing that the Earth's surface constantly accelerates upwards, given the information he gleans from the 'drop a rock' experiment; You and I know that he would be wrong, but not because we are smarter than he - we know because we have a wealth of OTHER observations and experimental results to rely upon.

You lack imagination; that's OK, as long as you don't try to impose your lack of imagination on others.

Please stop doing that.

 

[untermensche]

You're nuts.

We know very well why the rock falls.

You are so desperate to criticize you look foolish.

We - from our godlike point of view outside the thought experiment - know very well why the rock falls. But not simply because we saw a rock fall. You are cheating - the information provided in the experiment is insufficient, so you are using additional knowledge, unavailable in the scenario, to reach a conclusion.

Gravity is not our models of it or our explanations of it. Gravity is something expressed such that humans can see the expression.

The models flow from our observations and are only valid in that they conform to our observations.

And it doesn't matter what humans think, the expression is the same.

The expression was the same before Newton as it was after. The expression was the same before Einstein as it was after.

To be a creature walking on the Earth is to know the full expression of gravity in that context. Every move is a move with gravity "in mind".

It doesn't matter what world you are in; if you drop an object and it falls to the ground, then given that information alone, it is premature to conclude that gravity exists.

It is enough to know the expression of what we now call gravity exists.

The expression does not change the more humans know about gravity.

And gravity IS it's expression. That is what it is.

Not the human models.

That is what gravity is not. You do not understand the expression of gravity by knowing the models.

You know that by observation and through the experience of gravity.

 

[none]

We - from our godlike point of view outside the thought experiment - know very well why the rock falls. But not simply because we saw a rock fall. You are cheating - the information provided in the experiment is insufficient, so you are using additional knowledge, unavailable in the scenario, to reach a conclusion.

Gravity is not our models of it or our explanations of it. Gravity is something expressed such that humans can see the expression.

blah blah blah
Gravity is a word.
The rest of your diatribe is way the fuck off topic and useless to respond to.
Anyways, what is your evidence to support your claim that you experience a mind and that minds, the mind, and a mind aren't fictional?
What is the evidence? please...

 

[Juma]

a lot. observing and understanding gravity
requires much more than dropping a stone.

It is the full expression of gravity in that context. There is nothing more.

Our human explanations are much less complete than the actual experience.

It is the full expression of gravity.

What is? A dropped stone? Oh no , far from it. First you should record the time of the fall. You should use stones of different weights. You should somehow estimate the effect of air resistance. Etc. Aplying maths and logics may, or may not, enable the researcher to find some equations that models the motion of the stone. It will be a big leap from that to actually realize that it is the mass of the earth that pulls on the mass of the stone...
And yet bigger to realize the general theory of relativity.

You are not talking about the expression of gravity. What gravity really is.

You're talking about human incomplete models.

I remember when Freeman Dyson said that some scientists don't know the difference between the models and the real thing.

The models are always less than the real thing in completeness.

Yes. But that is no counter argument to my answer. You asked if you could see gravity completely by dropping a stone. And my answer is simple and obvious: no you cant. There is more to gravity than you see from dropping a single stone and just watch it.

 

[none]

Juma, I think you have to explicitly mention the OP of this thread otherwise undersmich will get lost again.

 

[untermensche]

Yes. But that is no counter argument to my answer. You asked if you could see gravity completely by dropping a stone. And my answer is simple and obvious: no you cant. There is more to gravity than you see from dropping a single stone and just watch it.

What you say is missing is the human model.

The rock doesn't care about the human model or need it.

It is completely superfluous to the situation.

And not needed at all to see what gravity actually is in that specific context. That which causes the rock to appear to fall.

 

[none]

yep unkersmock is lost.

 

[Juma]

Yes. But that is no counter argument to my answer. You asked if you could see gravity completely by dropping a stone. And my answer is simple and obvious: no you cant. There is more to gravity than you see from dropping a single stone and just watch it.

What you say is missing is the human model.

The rock doesn't care about the human model or need it.

It is completely superfluous to the situation.

And not needed at all to see what gravity actually is in that specific context. That which causes the rock to appear to fall.

If the indian drops a helium filled baloon the baloon will rise. Why would the indian connect theese two totally opposite effects and say "ah! Gravity!".

 

[none]

because minds are fictional..

 

[untermensche]

What you say is missing is the human model.

The rock doesn't care about the human model or need it.

It is completely superfluous to the situation.

And not needed at all to see what gravity actually is in that specific context. That which causes the rock to appear to fall.

If the indian drops a helium filled baloon the baloon will rise. Why would the indian connect theese two totally opposite effects and say "ah! Gravity!".

So your answer for the context in question is to invent a completely unrelated context?

Please!

You keep thinking a person has to know something to clearly see the effects of gravity.

They don't.

Where physics is needed is to quantify the effects, not to see them.

Where neuroscience is needed is to understand the mechanisms that create the mind. Not to know minds exist.

 

[bilby]

...

You keep thinking a person has to know something to clearly see the effects of gravity.

...

You keep thinking that you don't need to know anything; but it doesn't seem to be working out very well for you.

Again.

Perhaps knowing stuff is not as unnecessary as you think?

 

[untermensche]

...

You keep thinking a person has to know something to clearly see the effects of gravity.

...

You keep thinking that you don't need to know anything; but it doesn't seem to be working out very well for you.

Again.

Perhaps knowing stuff is not as unnecessary as you think?

What do you think I need to know?

Relativity is known. The facts are out there. I know many of them.

But this is a philosophical point, not a scientific point.

The reason we have Relativity is because the effects of gravity are apparent.

One does not need to know anything about Relativity to see and feel how gravity works within the context of human life on this planet.

 

[none]

Wow, good thing untermensche doesn't decide what is within the human context of life. ..whatever that means. ..
Got any evidence for your claim that you experience a mind?

 

[Juma]

If the indian drops a helium filled baloon the baloon will rise. Why would the indian connect theese two totally opposite effects and say "ah! Gravity!".

So your answer for the context in question is to invent a completely unrelated context?

Please!

You keep thinking a person has to know something to clearly see the effects of gravity.

They don't.

Where physics is needed is to quantify the effects, not to see them.

The sentence "to clearly see the effects of gravity" implies to be able to recognize what is result of gravity and what is not.

One effect of gravity is that everything remains the same: we and stuff around us, dont float out in space.

Thus what you require is that uneducated people should be to clearly see the difference between the current status and a world without gravity.

I do not believe they would.

 

[untermensche]

So your answer for the context in question is to invent a completely unrelated context?

Please!

You keep thinking a person has to know something to clearly see the effects of gravity.

They don't.

Where physics is needed is to quantify the effects, not to see them.

The sentence "to clearly see the effects of gravity" implies to be able to recognize what is result of gravity and what is not.

No it doesn't.

It just means if gravity is acting on something the effects can clearly be seen in some contexts from the human perspective.

An infant knows about gravity because it is learning to deal with it.

 

[none]

The sentence "to clearly see the effects of gravity" implies to be able to recognize what is result of gravity and what is not.

No it doesn't.

It just means if gravity is acting on something the effects can clearly be seen in some contexts from the human perspective.

An infant knows about gravity because it is learning to deal with it.

pfft you haven't defined gravity accurately and you haven't defined a mind, the mind, or minds at all..
what a waste

 

[fromderinside]

You both suffer from the delusion that what you experience is true, is evidence, when it is acutually only phenomenon.

Only phenomenon?

Again, that which is experienced is the greatest evidence a person can have.

If phenomenon is experienced then you have both the phenomenon and the thing that experienced it, a mind.

You missed a few items. So I'm giving you a second bite.

Find gravity in the dropped rock that lands 50 feet out to sea, the dropped rock that drifts around, the dropped rock that just stays where it was left. Test the powers of that all powerful fiction, the mind.

 

[untermensche]

Only phenomenon?

Again, that which is experienced is the greatest evidence a person can have.

If phenomenon is experienced then you have both the phenomenon and the thing that experienced it, a mind.

You missed a few items. So I'm giving you a second bite.

Find gravity in the dropped rock that lands 50 feet out to sea, the dropped rock that drifts around, the dropped rock that just stays where it was left. Test the powers of that all powerful fiction, the mind.

You've got one scenario to consider.

A man standing on the earth drops a rock.

Has he seen the effects of gravity or not?

In other scenarios you may see the effects of other things. But you will see the effects.