Re: A theological view on intelligent design?

On 17 Oct 2005 16:57:02 -0700, "Richard Dudley"
<abraxalito@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>William wrote:
[snip]

>> Reality exists independently of the model I construct of it
>> in my mind.
>
>OK, so is this one of your axioms, or not ?

Yes. It is one of about only two of our basic axioms. The validity of
the rules of logic being the other key one.

>> I accept, axiomatically, that
>> the model relates to an actual external reality where
>> things like tables and chairs have an objectively real existence.
>
>Yes, you've said that before. Its one of your axioms, one that you
>haven't examined very carefully in the light of e.g. quantum physics,
>cybernetics and consciousness studies.

Makes no difference. If I accept anything exterior to my mind I have
to do so axiomatically - I cannot prove it. To argue for it I have to
first assume it which means I cannot even construct an argument for
it.

There is no point in going back and examining it because it will
always be the same.

>> > ISTM that quantum physics tells us that no two person's constructs
>> > can be identical, since the two constructs aren't based on identical
>> > photons.
>>
>> If the 'construct' is a model of the external world it doesn't matter.
>
>But it isn't, its the 'internal world' appearing external.

Well, that's an odd way of putting it but it's not too far from what
I'm saying. An accurate internal model of an external reality *will*
appear like the external reality. It doesn't matter what the model is
constructed of - it is how well it works as a model that is important.

The crucial point is whether I believe the model is all there is or
whether I believe it is an internal model (built up through my sense
perceptions) of an exterior reality. If the latter, then I have to
continually check it against this external reality (via my sense
perceptions) to ensure it is an accurate model.

>> >For you, 'objective reality' is interior to your mind - you admitted
>> >that above where you agreed my paragraph about how you construct your
>> >visual world.
>>
>> No I didn't.
>
>You agreed that your brain constructs your visual reality. If it
>didn't, instead of being aware of a 3D world, you'd just be aware of
>two 2D images - what your retinas receive of external reality. Do you
>agree ?

That's not quite right. The internal, subjective reality I construct
is constructed *from* my visual input; it is not my visual input. In
fact its constructed from all my sense perceptions and the
interactions between them. A person who is blind from birth will still
have a 'model' in their mind of a 3D world out there.

>No need to use capitals since I already agree with you. Look - here I'm
>saying it for you - the model is not what you're calling 'objective
>reality'. Do you now agree that I agree with you ?

Good, yes :-)

>> >We most certainly are, its that you haven't checked your
>> >assumptions thoroughly yet.
>>
>> What assumptions might that be?
>
>Like I've said already, that the 'objective reality' of which you speak
>is actually 'objective'. You snipped the discussion where I was
>speaking about some things quantum physics tells us about reality. Why
>did you do that ?

Because, having accepted that there is an external reality to my mind
I find that quantum physics - or any other kind of physics - is part
of that reality. Photons (quantum entities) are what deliver some of
the information, through my visual sense, about the external world to
my subjective mind.

>> >> There are the occasional anomalies that show that my senses
>> >> do not always reliably detect it.
>> >
>> >Give examples of these please ?
>>
>> Where the input from one sense appears to contradict the input from
>> another, eg where I think I visually thought it was an apple I had
>> picked up bit it tastes like a pear.
>
>Please can you say what you mean by 'visually thought' ? It seems here
>that you're reflecting on your thinking process, which is not the same
>as your sensory process.

Well it was a loose expression. What I meant was that my visual sense
delivered to me an ambiguous set of signals (eg, it was getting dark
at the time) and my mind interpreted it to be detecting 'pear' shaped
rather than 'apple' shaped. My taste sense showed up the ambiguity.

Putting the light on allowed my visual sense to send a much clearer
set of signals that resolved the ambiguity and eliminated the error.

>> On checking more closely I find
>> that my visual input had delivered inconsistent information.
>
>Ah, are you saying you believed what you saw was a pear ? Did it also
>look like a pear to you ?

I believed that what I saw was a pear. If it was crucial to know
whether or not it was an apple I would have put the light on (and
checked smell and touch and taken a small taste) to make sure.

>> >> I have accepted (axiomatically) that it exists exterior
>> >> to my mind.
>> >
>> >So why not go ahead and examine that axiom in the light of how your
>> >brain constructs your visual reality ?
>>
>> Please explain how one can examine a basic axiom
>
>By reviewing it in the light of more recent findings of physics,
>cybernetics and consciousness studies. But you appear not to want to
>learn about those things.

You haven't answered the question. How do you examine a basic axiom?
[snip]

>> >I don't agree its objective, sure. Neither do you but you'll
>> >nevertheless deny this I predict.
>>
>> Is a table 'objective'?
>
>Nope, because its a construct of your visual process.

The visual process is not the construct - it simply conveys
information to my mind. My mind forms the 'construct' of the objective
world that I believe exists beyond my mind and the 'objects' that
exist in it. The 'construct' is not the object. But I've made that
clear so many times now that I guess I'll have to repeat it again
soon.

A blind person could arrive at just the some 'construct' in their mind
of a table through their other senses

>By saying this,
>I'm not saying that whatever gives rise to that construct in external
>reality doesn't exist, I'm rather saying it would be highly confusing
>to also call it a 'table'. Just as we don't call the pattern of bits
>you talked about inside the computer a 'wastebin'.

Not the same at all. I have told you my view on that.

>> Does the model (or construct) of the table
>> built up in your mind from your sense perceptions relate to an
>> objective table that exists externally and independent to your mind?
>
>You're showing your confusion clearly here. The model is a 2nd tier
>construct, and I'm not interested in discussing this since we both
>agree that we construct it. As I've explained before. So from now on,
>I'll cease to deal with 2nd tier things and concentrate on the first
>tier. Maybe this will help your confusion, or maybe it won't ;-)

No confusion this end. I've been perfectly clear all along.

>> >> It is a subjective model in my mind built up from information I
>> >> believe arrives via my senses from an objective reality. On that score
>> >> you could think of it as a 2nd 'tier' since the 1st one is the
>> >> objective reality itself but there is only one 'construct'.
>> >
>> >How strange that you agreed your visual process constructs a 3D world
>> >from two 2D images, but you deny that's a construct. What do you call
>> >that then ?
>>
>> A construct is fine. I would prefer to call it a model though.
>
>You're now agreeing that the 3D world you're aware of is a construct ?

No. The 3D world I am aware of is the world of objective reality
beyond and exterior to my mind. I believe I can know about this world
from the model built up in my mind through my senses. I may treat this
model *as* the objective reality but that is because I have tested it
so rigorously through my life that I can rely on it. In no way do I
(unlike you) believe it *is* the objective reality. If I did then I
would believe that I could modify objective reality from my subjective
perception of it rather than the other way round.

eg. I can imagine a plate slipping through the table and slowly
wafting to the floor and spreading out and merging with the floor. I
could add that to my 'model' of the world out there. But I don't. And
that because I believe information about the world has to come *from*
it via my senses and not the other way around. That is because I
believe that the world of objective reality exists independently of my
mind and independently of the 'constructs' of it built up in my mind.

>I think you're not understanding ! Please answer again - I'm asking
>what you call the 3D world your brain has constructed.
>
>> >> The acceptance of an objective reality is taken axiomatically - you do not
>> >> construct your basic axioms
>> >
>> >Oh no ? _You_ clearly have !
>>
>> Please show me where I have done that. Chapter and verse, please.
>
>Right at the point where I entered this thread, you had mentioned an
>axiom that you said scientists had accepted. You constructed that
>axiom.

I'm waiting for you to tell me *how* I built this basic axiom. Are you
going to do it or not. If not then please do not accuse me of having
done it.

>You have constructed the axiom that 'thinking means there's a
>thinker'. And so on.

"Thinking means there is a thinker" is basically a tautology. It is
not the same as accepting axiomatically that there is an objective
reality outside your mind.

>> As I said, how do you examine your basic axioms? I'd love to know.
>
>I've explained, and you've snipped away the parts of our conversation
>where I was leading you in the direction of examining your basic
>axioms.

So, for the umpteenth time, how do you examine your basic axioms? How
do you go back check that they are correct? I've told you the two I am
referring to. Examine them, re-examine them and go back and examine
them again. They will still be un-testable axioms. So why keep going
back?

William
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Latest News
    ... You mean YOUR "reality", and that's why! ... > going on in each other's mind, ... He didn't lie, and he was right, even without proof GWB's shitty ... You're lying to assert that. ...
    (sci.electronics.cad)
  • Re: Latest News
    ... You mean YOUR "reality", and that's why! ... > going on in each other's mind, ... He didn't lie, and he was right, even without proof GWB's shitty ... You're lying to assert that. ...
    (sci.electronics.misc)
  • Re: Latest News
    ... You mean YOUR "reality", and that's why! ... > going on in each other's mind, ... He didn't lie, and he was right, even without proof GWB's shitty ... You're lying to assert that. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Applications of Integrative Cognition - Part 2
    ... that is precisely what they had in mind: To have the journalist feel - ... So how can beauty not be a part of human reality, ... referential perspectives - ones that cannot, I repeat, cannot, be ... Integration through interpolation among these perspectives builds skill ...
    (soc.culture.french)
  • Re: A theological view on intelligent design?
    ... idea of an external objective world is not one of their axioms. ... No. I'm accepting what you tell me. ... have is the subjective world of your mind. ... >> What I mean by 'objective reality' is the reality that exists ...
    (uk.religion.christian)