On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:30:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/17/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:32:35PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/17/2014 5:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:03:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > >>>> On 2/17/2014 1:55 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 05:33:48AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >>>>>> Russell, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All of science assumes an external reality independent of human > >>>>>> observation. > >>>>> Who says? > > > > > >> The replacement of tables and chairs by atoms and then by wave > >> functions is just changing our best guess about ontology - it's not > >> evidence that there is no mind independent ontology. The fact that > >> there is intersubjective agreement on observations is still evidence > >> for a mutual reality. > > Yes a mutual reality, but not a mind independent one. > > Certainly independent of any single mind.
Certainly, but that only suggests that realism has to do with sharing common perceptions. A mutual reality requires that minds be mutually attuned to the same mutual range of sensitivity. We also have perceptions which we don't seem to share, and we can modulate between the two classes of perceptions intentionally as well as involuntarily. > And the science formulated so far is > independent of mind - It wants to be independent of mind, but really it is dependent on the mind's perception of the world perceived by the body (and technological bodies which extend the perception of our natural body). > which is why Liz supposed that the past existed before it was > observed (and constitutes a block universe past). > > > > >>> that most everyday scientists usually > >>> just focus on mathematical descriptions of phenomena, and leave it at > that. > >> But if you ask them why mathematical descriptions are so successful? > > Wouldn't they just point at Occam's razor, if they've thought about it > > at all, that is? Or even go with Max Tegmark and say its all > mathematics. > > Mathematics is just a different substrate, a different but still mind > indpendent reality. > Mathematics is even more dependent on the mind than science. It is the mind's view of the mind's measurement of itself as if it were the body. > Notice that the main argument given for the reality of mathematics is the > intersubjective > agreement on the truths of mathematics; which gives the feeling it is > discovered rather > than invented. > Ironically, mathematics is what the most mechanical range of our awareness has discovered about itself. The mistake is in attributing that narrow aesthetic to the totality. The problem is that mechanism is the product of insensitivity, so that it cannot prove that it is insensitive. When asked to simulate sense, it doesn't know how to show that it has failed. > > > >> Or why do we all agree that's a chair over there? > > That one is obviously convention. Someone from remote Amazonia who's > > never seen a chair before wouldn't agree. > > They might not agree on the name, but they would agree there was an object > there. The > possibility of having a useable convention would seem to be a miracle if > there is nothing > mind-indpendent that correlates the perceptions of different persons. > A dust mite would not necessarily agree that there was an object there. An entity which experienced the entire history of human civilization as a single afternoon might not agree that there was an object there. Neutrinos might not agree that there are objects at all. > > > > >> The existence of > >> some mind independent reality is always the working assumption. > >> > > Really? I don't think working scientists need to think about the issue > > much at all. > > Because it's an assumption so common they only question it unusual > experiments - like > tests of psychics. > > > Whether they assume there is some kind of > > mind-independent reality, or are outrageous solipsists would not > > affect their ability to conduct experiments or do theory. > > One could still assume a mind-independent reality while assuming that > one was the only > mind. But they could not do either experiments or theory if they assumed > the result > depended on what they hoped or wished or expected. > I agree, wishing is not science, but that need not be construed as evidence that physics is not ultimately metaphenomenal, and it doesn't mean that the equivalent of placebo effect and confirmation bias are not factors in all of science and nature in general. Craig > Brent > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
