Re: Reality vs. Perception of Reality

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:49:44 -0700

Colin Hales wrote:
>>So when I said that a rocket motor didn't fire last March because
>>corrosion products in the IRFNA pickup tube clogged the line, all
>>those people who thought this was an explanation were simply fooled.
>
>
> No. I am being very specific about the words. When I say explanation I mean
> WHY (underlying causal necessity) and not WHAT. In common language based on
> a previous description (a scientific law), an 'explanation' can be
> formulated. In this context, however, that is not what I mean.
>
>
>>Certainly fundamental physics is mathematical description and causal
>>relations are reduced to mathematical descriptions like "time-like
>>separated". But I don't see that as a disadvantage.
>
>
> This is an unfounded ascription: That the physics - the mathematical
> description is somehow directly invoked. This ascription maps a description
> (in the form of a mathematical generalisation) onto an explanation. Without
> justification. The universe behaving 'as if' the law is driving causality
> does not justify any position that it is doing so.
>
> There is NOTHING WRONG with the mathematical law! I am not proposing to
> throw out anything. It works. Read the quote at the bottom of the last
> email. I am saying that 50% of scientific characterisations of the natural
> world is simply missing.
>
>
>>Do you propose to provide "real causal necessities"?
>
>
> YES. Well I don't. Others do, though. Jobs already started. A small group of
> scientists around the world are already doing it. The problem is a) They
> don't realise they are working on explanatory models, not descriptive models
> and b) They don't understand the relationship of their work to phenomenal
> consciousness.
>
>
>>I didn't say reality was accessed. I said we create models of reality.
>>We only have access to the model. We're never sure about the "reality".
>
>
> Not so. An assumption. The underlying reality is accessible. Very difficult,
> very different but doable. You just haven't seen how its done. When you
> understand what causally necessitates phenomenality then phenomenality acts
> as evidence for explanatory models (phenomenality itself) and descriptive
> models (appearance provided by phenomenality). The same universe that
> necessitates that F = MA also necessitates phenomenality. Unless you believe
> phenomenality projected in by a god or through some other dualistic
> framework. This latter is just another untestable theory. Better to believe
> in the great galactic pumpkin.
>
>
>>When you say "I think there are objective models of reality" you are
>>making a very big assumption:
>
>
>>That's not an assumption. It's just an observation. We have the germ
>>theory of disease, the Newtonian model of the solar system, the Standard
>>Model of elementary particles, the solid object model of tables and
>
> chairs.
>
>
>>I'm not *assuming* these models describe reality. I only observe that
>
> they
>
>>work and that's the best evidence we can hope for. I don't pretend that
>
> we
>
>>can access what's "really real". But the fact that our models make
>>successful predictions beyond what was used to construct them makes
>>them more than tautologies.
>
>
> You misunderstand. 'Tautology' is not being perjorative! It's simply the
> natural structure of all correct descriptive laws correlating phenomenal
> artefacts. Also you assume that the evidentiary trail ends with the
> traditional view. Not so! See above.
>
>
>>You are
>
>
>>No I am NOT. Of course all experience is by subjects. All models
>>must be built form what we have. Do you propose some mystical
>>access independent of subjective experience?
>
>
> NO. Read what I have said above. Nothing mystical at all. Very real. Any
> model for causal necessity must a) predict phenomenality and b) the natural
> world's appearance appearance within it using a brain that results in us
> concluding F = MA for example. It's all quite consistent. You just have to
> get over all the prejudicial training.
>
>
>
>>Does that help?
>
>
> No.
>
> Oh well.... :-)
>
>
>
>>These issues only arise when you try and apply scientific method to the
>>phenomenality responsible for observation. You find you have to modify
>>science, not modify/create theorems within science. Science is behaving
>>pathologically at this boundary condition and I'm not going to stop until
>>someone else gets it. Once you have worked out what the revised model for
>>science actually is then it all falls into place. It's a seamless upgrade,
>>by the way.
>
>
> So what's the revised model? Is it a model of reality?
>
>
>
> Yes. But once again it too only a MODEL. There are 2 sets of models that
> apply equally. Both empirically supported by phenomenality. There is an
> entire class of solutions to the 'underlying physics' based on structured
> noise. I have been able to show how phenomenality arises in the entire
> class. Recently I formulated the mathematical basis for it, adding to the
> ontological version for those comfy with particle-like physics.
>
> For that reason I have more confidence that the structured noise models are
> actually involved in some way. Future work will help formulate more
> empirical testing in brain material. It makes predictions of brain matter.
>
> I don't know why folks are so up tight. We lose nothing by approaching
> things this way. We gain a whole lot by merely altering our mindset. I'm
> simply retrofitting context into a paradigm shift that's already happened!
>
> Colin

I'm not up tight - but I'm a little irritated that you keep asserting that
you've seen the whole picture and the rest of us only see half and that you've
worked out the true way - BUT you don't say what it is and you don't offer any
evidence beyond mere assertion.

Brent Meeker
Received on Wed Aug 03 2005 - 14:51:50 PDT