Where is your experience?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well they’re not competing theories as they don’t attempt to describe the same events. They are simply incompatible. We just don’t have an easily testable quantum theory of gravity at this time and so it remains outside the application of current quantum field theories. So your lack of problem with competing theories is similarly inapplicable to the problem at hand in this case. Basically we just don’t have enough facts about gravity at very small (on the Planck scale) distances or under extreme gravitational conditions at this time.

They are incompatible, but both, INCREDIBLE ACCURATE in their own fields... so much inconceivable accurate, that it is difficult not to believe they are really "pretty accurate descriptions of reality." Yet, if they are incompatible, one of them (at least) "should be wrong".

This problem of course, is only there if you need them to be a portrait of an imagined reality.

Wait, so now you do see some “need for ontological claims of” at least some sort? You didn’t seem to be conceptualizing it all that much or at all before?

They are implicit in language, this is why I choose my ontological minimalism.

Well since that “model” is “our current understanding of such” (that collection of facts). The only minor change would be “(consensually validated)”. That gets to be problematic both in the terms of ‘consensus’ and ‘validation’ a lack of falsification though potentially falsifiable seems a better approach to me and is ensconced (or at least intended to be) in the stated self and general consistency referred to before.

But who tests it? People.

Which isn’t a problem for me as long as we both get to the same place it really doesn’t matter what we call the road.

(I was talking about I didn't need a concept for any "underlying reality" behind our models).

To a point the results are exactly the same... the only difference, IMO, is that it is easier to have the mind open to new theories if we don't have the need to stick to any particular world view. If we choose to belief less and learn more.

Would pass as what, a fact or an assumption? Doesn’t “assumed fact” just try to lend some credence to the assumption that your memory or observation of the time was accurate by simply adding the word “fact”.?

Didn't get you there.. we have to assume myriads of things everyday. And yes, we are always assuming "facts", there is milk in the fridge, the sun will come out, the threes outside your house are still there when you return from vacations, and so on.

Out of sight out of mind, is that part of your minimalist ontology?

Could be see like that. But notice, out of your mind, does not mean it is not a potential fact.

What happens to the milk while it was just not being observed?

The question have no answer, because we can't know (if we were on a matrix, it would be bits on a computer simulation). So, i prefer to see the question as irrelevant.

Let’s say you put some milk in the fridge, go back and can’t find it. You go away for a few days while a power failure ruins everything in the fridge and you just dump it all without detailed observation. What happened to the milk? What theories about what happened to it are consistent with other facts?

There could be (potentially) thousands of "explanations" regarding what "happens" to the milk.. but in the end, what matters is that the so called "explanation" lead us to the fact.

That’s where your “consensus” comes from. Let’s just take the GPS you noted as an example. A constellation of satellites all placed (and remaining) in orbit by the facts of Newtonian mechanics and gravity. Timing signals that incorporate the facts of relativistic time dilation. Integrated circuits in both the satellites and receiver that, among other facts used in their construction, were at some points during production inspected with scanning tunneling electron microscopes and atomic force analyzers incorporating the facts of quantum mechanics . Just one simple device to you yet it requires that whole world of facts underlying the reality of its operation.

Where this is going? I'm kind of lost. What I mean is, that is supposed to be a problem?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

TO ALL:

This thread was somehow derailed by this exchange of concepts regarding what constitutes "reality". Of course, it is a very relevant subject when we attempt to answer the question raised at the OP. Why? because our answers depend on what we believe is a "correct representation of reality" (or something like that), and so the answers most conform our particular World View.

Now, I have not been questioned regarding the specific ontology I would sustain to state why I believe "the experience" is located at the body but I believe the answer is transparent once you understand a bit what I have stated about what constitutes a fact and how we relate to it. Now, if I want to be even more precise, I have to say that "the experience" is not located in "the world of stuff" that we naively assume is "really out there", but only that "the experience" is sort of a self-contained process on itself... No... I'm not claiming that it is not produced by the brain (in relation to the senses and the body) nor that it is "immaterial" no "supernatural" in any sense. I know the ones who have keep with the thread are perfectly aware of this.. but anyway, its a reminder in case any new member jumps in to the discussion. What I mean is that the "subjective experience" is private, that's all.

 

[CapelDodger]

Other than that, I don't see the need for any world with any underlying reality behind facts.

Heaven forbid you ever do find such a need pressed upon you.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Heaven forbid you ever do find such a need pressed upon you.

Have you ever read The Black Swan?

 

[The Man]

They are incompatible, but both, INCREDIBLE ACCURATE in their own fields... so much inconceivable accurate, that it is difficult not to believe they are really "pretty accurate descriptions of reality." Yet, if they are incompatible, one of them (at least) "should be wrong".

Again as I said we just don’t know enough about gravity at the quantum scale and the singularity is a pretty good indication that our knowledge of gravity fails to be predictive, let alone accurately predictive at those scales. We just don’t know they both could be wrong to some degree or that incompatibility is just an aspect of the underlying reality.

This problem of course, is only there if you need them to be a portrait of an imagined reality.

No the problem of their current incompatibility is there regardless of “if you need them to be a portrait of an imagined reality”. Even if that incompatibility is an aspect of the underlying reality. It just means we have to accept that incompatibility or find some other way around it other than unification. Reality and the problems related there unto are specifically not imagined.

They are implicit in language, this is why I choose my ontological minimalism.

Actually they were explicit in the claim "Every "is" statement is an ontological claim", perhaps you need to drop something else from your “minimalism” approach.

But who tests it? People.

Well we had a team of monkeys working on it but once we got enough of them together they just started typing the collective works of Shakespeare, dang monkeys (though their Shakespeare in the trees summer fests were something to see).

Or to put it more succinctly it is not only people that test their models of reality and heck some people don’t even bother to do that.

(I was talking about I didn't need a concept for any "underlying reality" behind our models).

This again is not a problem for me as long as those models are based on fact we still get to the same place. You can call that collection of facts underlying those models whatever you want. Some choose to call them the reality underlying those models. Six of one, half a dozen of another.

To a point the results are exactly the same... the only difference, IMO, is that it is easier to have the mind open to new theories if we don't have the need to stick to any particular world view. If we choose to belief less and learn more.

Facts are a world view. If you don’t stick to them then the result aren’t the same and the only difference is that reality is neither constrained by nor dependent upon ones opinions or beliefs.

Didn't get you there.. we have to assume myriads of things everyday. And yes, we are always assuming "facts", there is milk in the fridge, the sun will come out, the threes outside your house are still there when you return from vacations, and so on.

It seems you did get me at least partially, yes we assume a lot of things and while ones assumption can be a fact what distinguishes the two are their basis in other facts. Compliance with that underlying reality of facts, an assumption requires little or none at all while a fact requires compliance with all.

Could be see like that. But notice, out of your mind, does not mean it is not a potential fact.

The question wasn’t ‘could it be seen like’, but was “is that part of” so don’t just put what was asked “out of your mind”.

The question have no answer, because we can't know (if we were on a matrix, it would be bits on a computer simulation). So, i prefer to see the question as irrelevant.

Guess what, that’s an answer. So the question does have at least one answer ‘what happens when the milk is not observed is irrelevant’. Not a very useful answer though and perhaps not a very true one either particularly if one wanted or expected the milk to remain where it was in spite ones lack of observation. Some other answers might actually be testable and provide some new knowledge.

There could be (potentially) thousands of "explanations" regarding what "happens" to the milk.. but in the end, what matters is that the so called "explanation" lead us to the fact.

“lead us to the fact”? What fact, that milk disappears in your fringe, that someone is entering your home and taking milk, that you just forgot where you put it? You’ve got to first come up with an explanation and test it before it will lead you anywhere and “irrelevant” won’t lead you anywhere then where you already are.

Where this is going? I'm kind of lost. What I mean is, that is supposed to be a problem?

I don’t know where it’s going, it’s a discussion and I’m sorry if you feel lost that wasn’t my intent I was simply trying to relate to you both the complexity and requirement of the underlying reality that makes a our current technologically dependent society function. Some special crystals of Kyloth, an incantation or two and the lost potions of the Wizard of Ecliptous all combined might do the same, but none of that is real.

 

[The Man]

TO ALL:

This thread was somehow derailed by this exchange of concepts regarding what constitutes "reality". Of course, it is a very relevant subject when we attempt to answer the question raised at the OP. Why? because our answers depend on what we believe is a "correct representation of reality" (or something like that), and so the answers most conform our particular World View.

Now, I have not been questioned regarding the specific ontology I would sustain to state why I believe "the experience" is located at the body but I believe the answer is transparent once you understand a bit what I have stated about what constitutes a fact and how we relate to it. Now, if I want to be even more precise, I have to say that "the experience" is not located in "the world of stuff" that we naively assume is "really out there", but only that "the experience" is sort of a self-contained process on itself... No... I'm not claiming that it is not produced by the brain (in relation to the senses and the body) nor that it is "immaterial" no "supernatural" in any sense. I know the ones who have keep with the thread are perfectly aware of this.. but anyway, its a reminder in case any new member jumps in to the discussion. What I mean is that the "subjective experience" is private, that's all.

Wait, what? “the "subjective experience" is private”? Holy crap, you mean everyone doesn’t experience my "subjective experience" as and when I do? There should be some word for this ‘private experience’. Too bad “subjective” is already taken and evidently means something else.

 

[Dancing David]

And really it is only private until you do something to study it, like the imaging studies done on the optic nerves.

It is private in the psychological sense but that does not mean it will always stay so.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Again as I said we just don’t know enough about gravity at the quantum scale and the singularity is a pretty good indication that our knowledge of gravity fails to be predictive, let alone accurately predictive at those scales. We just don’t know they both could be wrong to some degree or that incompatibility is just an aspect of the underlying reality.

What if the incompatibility is only a problem in our heads, for wanting to keep that familiar idea about we are making maps about a territory? What if what we are doing is just discovering buoys (and keeping track of them with our maps) in a dense fog?

Actually they were explicit in the claim "Every "is" statement is an ontological claim", perhaps you need to drop something else from your “minimalism” approach.

But what I said is correct, language itself draws the line, so to speak, and it implies an ontology with every "is" statement. But thanks, I do have to revise the issue if at some point I want to write a proper essay or something.

This again is not a problem for me as long as those models are based on fact we still get to the same place. You can call that collection of facts underlying those models whatever you want. Some choose to call them the reality underlying those models. Six of one, half a dozen of another.

Agreed, it really doesn't matter that much, for me, facts always facts instead of ideas of what is "behind" those facts. Now, don't get me wrong, theoretical approaches are interesting, of course, and I love them, I just don't want to marry them.

Facts are a world view. If you don’t stick to them then the result aren’t the same and the only difference is that reality is neither constrained by nor dependent upon ones opinions or beliefs.

Facts are organized in coherent fashions in world views. And yes, facts are facts, but... I have to call your attention on something... facts are limited to our perceptions, opinions and beliefs. At least known and projected facts, of course.

It seems you did get me at least partially, yes we assume a lot of things and while ones assumption can be a fact what distinguishes the two are their basis in other facts. Compliance with that underlying reality of facts, an assumption requires little or none at all while a fact requires compliance with all.

Yes, IMO, the world views we just mentioned.

Guess what, that’s an answer. So the question does have at least one answer ‘what happens when the milk is not observed is irrelevant’. Not a very useful answer though and perhaps not a very true one either particularly if one wanted or expected the milk to remain where it was in spite ones lack of observation. Some other answers might actually be testable and provide some new knowledge.

Well, we need to have answers, what I object is that our answers are objective, they are just models that relate known and unknown facts in a coherent fashion.

“lead us to the fact”? What fact, that milk disappears in your fringe, that someone is entering your home and taking milk, that you just forgot where you put it? You’ve got to first come up with an explanation and test it before it will lead you anywhere and “irrelevant” won’t lead you anywhere then where you already are.

Any of those, yes, the fact will be the fact, but until its known, it will be an open question.

I don’t know where it’s going, it’s a discussion and I’m sorry if you feel lost that wasn’t my intent I was simply trying to relate to you both the complexity and requirement of the underlying reality that makes a our current technologically dependent society function. Some special crystals of Kyloth, an incantation or two and the lost potions of the Wizard of Ecliptous all combined might do the same, but none of that is real.

Oh I know don't need for apologies of any sort! I appreciate very much your comments.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wait, what? “the "subjective experience" is private”? Holy crap, you mean everyone doesn’t experience my "subjective experience" as and when I do? There should be some word for this ‘private experience’. Too bad “subjective” is already taken and evidently means something else.

And really it is only private until you do something to study it, like the imaging studies done on the optic nerves.

It is private in the psychological sense but that does not mean it will always stay so.

No mystery here, by "private" I mean yours, not anything fancier.

 

[Dancing David]

No mystery here, by "private" I mean yours, not anything fancier.

Sure in psychology, private behaviors are those that can not be discerned from eyebal observation, etc...

However given recent advances it is not likely that the perceptions which are 'subjective experience' will remain so.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sure in psychology, private behaviors are those that can not be discerned from eyebal observation, etc...

However given recent advances it is not likely that the perceptions which are 'subjective experience' will remain so.

That like I posted is pretty amazing regarding this... its the first glimpse about we could, theoretically at least, recreate the whole "brain representation" that is presented (somehow) as "experience" to the individual. Is fascinating.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, but so complex that it would take translation power of a huge magnitude to say transfer experinec directly.

Each brain is idiomatic in its structure and use.

It is a wow factor 1,000,000

 

[The Man]

What if the incompatibility is only a problem in our heads, for wanting to keep that familiar idea about we are making maps about a territory? What if what we are doing is just discovering buoys (and keeping track of them with our maps) in a dense fog?

Basically that is the current consideration that the problem is "just in our heads". As such unification would solve that problem. However if that incompatibility is not just an aspect of the abstract mathematical spaces we use to model each. Then unification will not be possible as that problem is then an aspect of the underlying reality of space-time (it is continuous) and not just a limitation of how we are currently able to model it.

But what I said is correct, language itself draws the line, so to speak, and it implies an ontology with every "is" statement. But thanks, I do have to revise the issue if at some point I want to write a proper essay or something.

Language can be implicit, inferring some aspect without saying it directly. It can also be explicit making a direct statement of such. The two are distinct for a reason, the one leaves the possibility that the implication is not what was intended to be communicated while the other does not. Language it just a tool to communicate ideas so the line must be draw with what ideas one wants to communicate.

Agreed, it really doesn't matter that much, for me, facts always facts instead of ideas of what is "behind" those facts. Now, don't get me wrong, theoretical approaches are interesting, of course, and I love them, I just don't want to marry them.

And you don't have to, you don't have to be tied to any one particular underlying reality to simply accept that what we are modeling, as best we can, is an underlying reality. Again this is what makes the models dependent upon the underlying reality as opposed to the other way around.

Facts are organized in coherent fashions in world views. And yes, facts are facts, but... I have to call your attention on something... facts are limited to our perceptions, opinions and beliefs. At least known and projected facts, of course.

Nope, the bus coming at you (or just being late) is in no way limited by your " perceptions, opinions and beliefs" that that it wont hit you (or will be on time). Were that not the case ones "perceptions, opinions and beliefs" could never be demonstrated to be contradictory to the facts.

Yes, IMO, the world views we just mentioned.

Not if it is dependent on one's "perceptions, opinions and beliefs". Now, while one can certainly hold a "world view" contrary to the facts that is generally called a delusion and not the type of world view we are specifically discussing.

Well, we need to have answers, what I object is that our answers are objective, they are just models that relate known and unknown facts in a coherent fashion.

Actually and technically our answers and models are objective. That is to say that they are formulated and tested in such away as to be specifically as compliant as possible with an objective reality. The entire basis of the models is that reality is not subjective, a hypothesis that has yet to be falsified in spite of the fact that all the "perceptions, opinions and beliefs" we form test that hypothesis everyday.

Any of those, yes, the fact will be the fact, but until its known, it will be an open question.

The good thing about facts is that they can stand up to being questioned, so that door shouldn't close just because a fact is "know". It is only by withstanding that constant testing and questioning that the status of "fact" is maintained. Now certainly as that progresses it gets harder to formulate relevant questions that haven't been answered before and a preponderance of data remains. That a well established fact needs an equally well established set of data to refute it. The milk simply dematerializing in your fridge would require far more supporting evidence to be an answer compliant with other well established facts than any of the other answers.

Oh I know don't need for apologies of any sort! I appreciate very much your comments.

Thank you, all to often it seems that some people need to have an agenda or attitude simply to discuss things and OMFSM disagree.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Language can be implicit, inferring some aspect without saying it directly. It can also be explicit making a direct statement of such. The two are distinct for a reason, the one leaves the possibility that the implication is not what was intended to be communicated while the other does not. Language it just a tool to communicate ideas so the line must be draw with what ideas one wants to communicate.

Which is an impossible task. Language limits, and in certain way, defines what we can think. We could call it a trap. My favorite philosopher, Wittgenstein, said "The limits of my language are the limits of my world", and I can't agree more. Language its a deep subject, incredible complex to deal with. So far, analytic philosophy is trying to solve some problems which would be useful for philosophy of science. At one point I plan to dig deeper there.

And you don't have to, you don't have to be tied to any one particular underlying reality to simply accept that what we are modeling, as best we can, is an underlying reality. Again this is what makes the models dependent upon the underlying reality as opposed to the other way around.

I don't follow. What you say seems circular to me.

Nope, the bus coming at you (or just being late) is in no way limited by your " perceptions, opinions and beliefs" that that it wont hit you (or will be on time). Were that not the case ones "perceptions, opinions and beliefs" could never be demonstrated to be contradictory to the facts.

Agreed. That doesn't make some of them "more real" than others, because what matters is only that they can match the facts.

Not if it is dependent on one's "perceptions, opinions and beliefs". Now, while one can certainly hold a "world view" contrary to the facts that is generally called a delusion and not the type of world view we are specifically discussing.

Completely agree.

Actually and technically our answers and models are objective. That is to say that they are formulated and tested in such away as to be specifically as compliant as possible with an objective reality. The entire basis of the models is that reality is not subjective, a hypothesis that has yet to be falsified in spite of the fact that all the "perceptions, opinions and beliefs" we form test that hypothesis everyday.

Here we disagree, but if we dig in the subject, we might be saying the same thing with different words. By definition, a model is subjective. If it correlates, or not, with facts, is what matters. But facts are not "entities on their own", facts are the relation between perceptions and stimulus. A perception involves the stimulus and several mechanisms inside the body, for example, pattern recognition mechanisms, memory, etc. The stimulus is something else, could be called the "external" component of perception. What I argue is that it is irrelevant what that stimuli "is", as "is statements" are ontological statements, and assumptions.

The good thing about facts is that they can stand up to being questioned, so that door shouldn't close just because a fact is "know". It is only by withstanding that constant testing and questioning that the status of "fact" is maintained. Now certainly as that progresses it gets harder to formulate relevant questions that haven't been answered before and a preponderance of data remains. That a well established fact needs an equally well established set of data to refute it. The milk simply dematerializing in your fridge would require far more supporting evidence to be an answer compliant with other well established facts than any of the other answers.

Exactly.

Thank you, all to often it seems that some people need to have an agenda or attitude simply to discuss things and OMFSM disagree.

 

[Dancing David]

Which is an impossible task. Language limits, and in certain way, defines what we can think.

Only if you consider verbal cognition to be the only form of cognition.

 

[Paul2]

Language limits, and in certain way, defines what we can think. We could call it a trap. My favorite philosopher, Wittgenstein, said "The limits of my language are the limits of my world", and I can't agree more.

How might this claim be established sufficiently? How do you rule out anything besides language? What about music, and especially improvisation (as compared to language)? How can one NOT be thinking about music when improvising?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Only if you consider verbal cognition to be the only form of cognition.

How might this claim be established sufficiently? How do you rule out anything besides language? What about music, and especially improvisation (as compared to language)? How can one NOT be thinking about music when improvising?

Good points. I'm not stating that everything is language, just that in order to being able to grasp and state ontological commitment claims, you need a language, and that in many ways, the possible ontological commitments are pre defined by the language.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh , ontology.

 

[Paul2]

Good points. I'm not stating that everything is language, just that in order to being able to grasp and state ontological commitment claims, you need a language, and that in many ways, the possible ontological commitments are pre defined by the language.

It's good to know that not all possible ontological commitments are pre-defined by the language, that leaves some room to do what the language can't allow.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It's good to know that not all possible ontological commitments are pre-defined by the language, that leaves some room to do what the language can't allow.

I'm certainly open to the possibility of other kind of languages, or even cognitive processes. I also believe that we are hardwired in a way that our language has to develop in certain ways, and no others. For instance, I believe that our very known "causality" is a limitation of our cognition, there most be other ways (even when with language sometimes we try to go beyond the old "cause and effect"), to think in relations between facts. Mere speculation from my part.