Earth-like exoplanet discovered around Proxima Centauri

[The Great Zaganza]

If the Universe has no existence outside of human observers, where did all the Humans come from?

It's like the discovery of the Americas: the people there might have been aware of its existence, but it only counted once Europeans discovered it.

 

[SelfSim]

No. Again: you treat them as if they are independant of your thoughts. You believe they are objective.
...
And yet you treat other people as if they exist and as if they have these sensations also.

So let me understand .. you are saying that I am treating other people (and their sensations) as something independent of my thoughts? ... Yes, I am - other people and their sensations are certainly not my thoughts, (or some figment of my imagination). I can test for this following the scientific process, and there is abundant evidence that this is so.

You are then saying that I believe they are 'objective' and, (presumably), you're using the word 'objective' to mean that they exist independently of any mind, and they are therefore part of some 'mind independent reality' which exists (ie: your 'objective reality')? ... If so, my answer would be absolutely not! If you think this is what I've said, then you haven't understood a thing I've been saying.
(If this is not what you're saying then clarify what you are saying!)

Different minds have different sensations, and different people are different people. They all exist independently of my thoughts. This is no problem from the perspective I present. In fact, I've stated this before, it is testable and there is abundant scientific evidence that this is so .. all you have to do is look.

No.

Ok then who/what do you think designed them?

And they were designed to produce consistent results, which also trace back to the scientific process having been followed, (thus endowing them with that particular quality). All of the above things required minds to produced these accomplishments.

The mind's fingerprints are all over this one!

Which would be impossible if reality was subjective.

Did you read the parts you didn't quote? (Underlined, this time). I cited traceable dependencies for which we can test. All you did was restate your belief which you also projected onto what I said.
Tell me what's 'impossible' about those underlined parts.

No, I've explained this to you already.

Your explanations are without evidence.
You persist with repeats of your fallacious 'proof by repeated assertion', which is therefore ignorable.

"The world is an illusion and only I exist" is solipsism, bub.

Which is irrelevant.
Denial of the distinctions for solipism, which I've already presented, is a terrible thing, 'kiddo'.

OK, how is it useful? How would this philosophy allow you to solve problems or situations, or determine a course of action,...

It exposes the inconsistency of maintaining the belief, (or even superstition), that some mind independent reality exists, which has zip objective evidence supporting it. It relieves science of the burden of having to cover up for this inconsistency, in order to escape being labelled as yet another religion, for starters.
Its distinctions, held in mind, are useful tools for identifying untestable or untested beliefs throughout the scientific process.
I'd call those useful. (And they are just off the top of my head).

... if reality's an illusion?

Who said reality's an illusion? ... I'll answer that ... you did.
I never once mentioned 'illusion'.

No. They are evidence that I perceive objective reality.

All you're peceiving are your own perceptions because that's what 'perception' means!
I mean look at just how silly what you just said is!
Demonstrate this evidence. Your repeated fallacy of proof by assertion wears very thin.

And yet the thing being observed is the same. You can't use interpretation to disimss that because it's irrelevant.

I am yet to see an observation that does not include the observer. It all starts with that and unless you can cite a test which removes the observer from the observation, your argument is nothing more than a belief.
You're welcome to believe that you can do it, though .. good luck at coming up with the objective test for it, because you haven't come anywhere even close to that yet.

 

[SelfSim]

If the Universe has no existence outside of human observers, where did all the Humans come from?

We have developed models for making sense of our perceptions of that. And their predictions test out well. Those models require human minds to create and interpret them ... I mean, do you seriously think a dog has any concept of the LCDM model or the evolution model?
If you do, then I would say you simply hold another type model in mind which confers your own intelligence onto the dog who is, of course, unable to describe its own model of 'the universe' and the existence of humans to us, to verify what you say.
Try it out! Test it out! (I wouldn't recommend a public venue for the test, though).
If you continue to cling to the idea that a dog sees the universe as an LCDM model and humans as a product of evolution, with no verifiable evidence for that, then I am justified in calling that a belief, where a belief is a notion held as being true for any reason.

 

[SelfSim]

It's like the discovery of the Americas: the people there might have been aware of its existence, but it only counted once Europeans discovered it.

Maybe .. depends on what you mean by 'counted'.
(Not having a go at you here); do you think the people originally living there related to it as 'the Americas'? How could they? No, in order to make sense of their perceptions of land, bodies of water, wind, (etc), they developed their own models. (The evidence for this, is in the history of those people, and the records of their religious beliefs). It didn't test out too well though, which may account for their inability to respond to what ensued, so there must've been a better tested model in existence at the time, (in the other minds of the time), eh? (The evidence for this, comes in the form of written records of the time).

All of the above is evidence of minds at play .. and nothing more than that.

 

[SelfSim]

The key clarification being made here is: what about our meaning of "reality" is a kind of personal opinion, and what is something that is actually supported by evidence.

The main points I'm making are:

1) Scientific thinking does not rest on personal opinions. Science really couldn't work that way. It has to always be based on what can be objectively demonstrated, or else it ceases to be science, and starts to be something very different from science.

2) Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of "reality" in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind.

The purpose of these observations, among other things, is to demonstrate that:

1) The widespread idea that science uses and needs a notion of mind-independent reality is dead-flat wrong,
and;
2) At times, a notion that science accesses a mind-independent type of reality can actually be a barrier to scientific progress, as has happened many times in the history of science.

Finally, it is worth noting that this perspective is not making any claim that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is the what reality actually is", rather the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.

It is clear that most scientific models do not explicitly include our minds in the model. This is a standard type of idealization, constantly used in science, and is totally different from claiming that a model which does not explicitly include the role of the mind, does not then require a role of the mind to interpret and use that model.

 

[jonesdave116]

Sounds like a bunch of philosophical nonsense going on to me. So.....what about this planet around Proxima? Flare star, I believe. Can't be good. Or is it only a flare star in the minds of humans, because that is what our human invented instruments are telling us? Or is it down to how our minds are interpreting the results..........maybe we never invented these instruments in the first place, and it's all a dream?
Personally, I think the planet is worth discussing; the rest belongs elsewhere.

 

[SelfSim]

... Personally, I think the planet is worth discussing; the rest belongs elsewhere.

I totally agree .. but others refuse to accept my suggestions of setting up their own thread on it, and then they continue to use philosophical arguments to divert this thread from what I'd rather be talking about, too.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I totally agree .. but others refuse to accept my suggestions of setting up their own thread on it, and then they continue to use philosophical arguments to divert this thread from what I'd rather be talking about, too.

Ask the mods for a thread split, there's already been one in this thread.

 

[Craig B]

... divert this thread from what I'd rather be talking about, too.

SelfSim is simply laughing at anyone foolish enough to take him seriously, as is evidenced by his humorous displays of what looks like megalomaniac arrogance in pretended defence of a ludicrous pastiche of philosophical idealism.

 

[SelfSim]

For folks reading this thread, who are able to take what I have said at face value, I can assure them that I derive no pleasure whatsoever, in putting people down for what may not be obvious for them yet. (As is evidenced by my previous corrective apology in post #168, where I realised I had slipped up on that).

My purpose was stated in post #182:

OK, how is it useful? How would this philosophy allow you to solve problems or situations, or determine a course of action,...

It exposes the inconsistency of maintaining the belief, (or even superstition), that some mind independent reality exists, which has zip objective evidence supporting it. It relieves science of the burden of having to cover up for this inconsistency, in order to escape being labelled as yet another religion, for starters.
Its distinctions, held in mind, are useful tools for identifying untestable or untested beliefs throughout the scientific process.
I'd call those useful. (And they are just off the top of my head).

and further in post #185

The purpose of these observations, among other things, is to demonstrate that:

1) The widespread idea that science uses and needs a notion of mind-independent reality is dead-flat wrong,
and;
2) At times, a notion that science accesses a mind-independent type of reality can actually be a barrier to scientific progress, as has happened many times in the history of science.

There is no 'pretended defense' under the guise of philosophical idealism (or any other philosophically based 'isms'), as I make no exclusions on such philosophical principles. (Even though others apparently do make their own attempts at doing this, directed at the perspective I present). What I, and the scientific thinker seeks, is only ever test results from objective testing and observations.

 

[Brainache]

We have developed models for making sense of our perceptions of that. And their predictions test out well. Those models require human minds to create and interpret them ... I mean, do you seriously think a dog has any concept of the LCDM model or the evolution model?

No I don't. Of course our models of the universe are dependent on human thinking, but a model of the universe is not the universe. The map is not the territory it describes.

If you do, then I would say you simply hold another type model in mind which confers your own intelligence onto the dog who is, of course, unable to describe its own model of 'the universe' and the existence of humans to us, to verify what you say.
Try it out! Test it out! (I wouldn't recommend a public venue for the test, though).
If you continue to cling to the idea that a dog sees the universe as an LCDM model and humans as a product of evolution, with no verifiable evidence for that, then I am justified in calling that a belief, where a belief is a notion held as being true for any reason.

As I don't believe that dogs see the world in terms of human models, the rest of your post is pointless.

I have no desire to continue this meaningless derail.

 

[SelfSim]

No I don't. Of course our models of the universe are dependent on human thinking, but a model of the universe is not the universe. The map is not the territory it describes.

The instant you use the term 'territory' you are using a model. (Look up the definition .. there's the model).
The instant you use term 'the universe', you are using a model. (Look up the definition .. there's the model).
Once perceptions are described, we have a model.
Models regarded as being true for any reason, (aka: the way you view 'the territory' above), in science, are beliefs.

So far, no-one has come up with any test which demonstrates that 'the map', and 'the territory it describes', are anything more than just two different models. Show me the test. Until then, its mind models all the way down.

I have no desire to continue this meaningless derail.

That makes two of us.

 

[SelfSim]

... Models regarded as being true for any reason, (aka: the way you view 'the territory' above), in science, are beliefs.

Funnily enough, my above comment is arguably on topic .. (as per the OP):

.. If this pans out, it is extremely exciting. Not only might there be the potential for exobiology, but even if there isn't life it may be suitable for human colonisation - and be close enough that colonists could actually get there within a single human lifetime.

I hope it's true.

 

[Belz...]

So let me understand .. you are saying that I am treating other people (and their sensations) as something independent of my thoughts? ... Yes, I am - other people and their sensations are certainly not my thoughts, (or some figment of my imagination). I can test for this following the scientific process, and there is abundant evidence that this is so.

You are then saying that I believe they are 'objective' and, (presumably), you're using the word 'objective' to mean that they exist independently of any mind, and they are therefore part of some 'mind independent reality' which exists (ie: your 'objective reality')? ... If so, my answer would be absolutely not!

Congratulations; you just contradicted yourself.

Ok then who/what do you think designed them?

Objective human minds.

All you did was restate your belief which you also projected onto what I said.

I didn't project anything. I gave you the only possible conclusion.

Your explanations are without evidence.

Your philosophy denies evidence as a concept. In this context I have to use logic instead, but you seem immune to that as well.

It exposes the inconsistency of maintaining the belief, (or even superstition), that some mind independent reality exists, which has zip objective evidence supporting it. It relieves science of the burden of having to cover up for this inconsistency, in order to escape being labelled as yet another religion, for starters.
Its distinctions, held in mind, are useful tools for identifying untestable or untested beliefs throughout the scientific process.
I'd call those useful.

Well, you're wrong. None of that allows you to make any real life decision, especially when you deny that real life exists.

Who said reality's an illusion?

If it's not objective, then it's an illusion. You can't have your cake and eat it too, no matter how much you want to.

All you're peceiving are your own perceptions because that's what 'perception' means!

Irrelevant. We have methods to ensure that our perceptions aren't illusory. Again, your game is denying everything, period. THAT is wearing thin. Any first-year philosophy student can do it. Apparently, few can understand why it's nonsense.

I am yet to see an observation that does not include the observer.

Irrelevant.

 

[Craig B]

. ... Denial of the distinctions for solipism, which I've already presented, is a terrible thing, 'kiddo' ...

Your repeated fallacy of proof by assertion wears very thin.

I am yet to see an observation that does not include the observer. It all starts with that

This puerile nastiness linked with megalomaniac assertions of superiority is an odd phenomenon, but more of psychological than of philosophical interest, so I will address another issue. It is you who are guilty of the "repeated assertion" fallacy. Nobody is denying that observation requires an observer. See here

You weren't saying: to observe a response, an observer is required. That would be just fine and dandy, if a bit tautological.

You were saying that the probability of my experiencing a response is entirely dependent on my personal assumptions.

What is being stated is that objective reality doesn't require an observer in order to exist. Your response is simply to assert that if we honestly say that reality exists then we must believe it exists, therefore we are basing our assertions on faith, like a believer in hobgoblins; or alternatively that if we say that reality exists we must be saying that it can be observed, therefore it requires an observer in order to exist. These are infantile arguments.

 

[SelfSim]

Congratulations; you just contradicted yourself.

No .. no contradiction.
You just don't get the differences between my mind's thoughts, someone else's mind's thoughts and something that (supposedly) exists entirely separately from any mind whatsoever.
The claim that something is 'mind independent' is a claim that no minds are involved whatsoever .. ie: not yours, not mine, not anyone's. (That is, unless you want to change the meaning of the term 'independent' to fit your own needs).

Objective human minds.

I'll quote it, yet again (in bold this time) ...

.. And they were designed to produce consistent results, which also trace back to the scientific process having been followed, (thus endowing them with that particular quality). All of the above things required minds to produced these accomplishments.

The only reason the instruments we're talking about produce objective data is because they have been built by humans specifically for the purpose of producing science's objective data. This means the variables involved have been constrained in the design so as to produce consistent data.

You however, appear to be attempting to make the ridiculous point that the only criteria for instruments to produce consistent results, is that they must not be produced by subjective (or imagined) minds(?) Never once have I said that other people are figments of, or are under the control of, my imagination! Your point thus appears to be addressing some kind of strawman you set up in your imagination?

When I said:

Well those instruments were designed by 'subjective' human minds also, no?

I meant that human minds are capable of somtimes thinking in subjective ways and that this is irrelevant to the fact that scientific, well designed instruments are capable of producing consistent results. There is abundant evidence for this just take a look .. for eg: people with all kinds of subjective religious beliefs are involved in the construction of scientific instruments, they also dream at night, so what impact does this have on those instruments' ability to produce consistent results? Answer: absolutely none!

All you did was restate your belief which you also projected onto what I said.

I didn't project anything. I gave you the only possible conclusion.

You didn't answer my request.

Here's what was written:

And they were designed to produce consistent results, which also trace back to the scientific process having been followed, (thus endowing them with that particular quality). All of the above things required minds to produced these accomplishments.!

Which would be impossible if reality was subjective.

Tell me what's 'impossible' about those underlined parts.

You never answered my above request - what is impossible about those underlined parts?

Your philosophy denies evidence as a concept.

No .. I mostly use the term 'evidence' in reference to the end result from scientific tests and observations. Are you ruling those out on the basis that scientific tests are the result of philosophy?

.. In this context I have to use logic instead, but you seem immune to that as well.

The thing is that I have not used anything other than observations of what has been written by minds in this thread.

As far as logic is concerned, as I mentioned in another thread, here:

It's a complete misunderstanding that science is a logical process that starts by assuming its hypotheses, theories or its definitions are true. That's how logic works. But logic never does anything but find the tautological equivalences of its predicates and postulates. Science isn't like that at all!

Where logic traces back to posits asserted as being 'true', and beliefs are notions held as being 'true' for any reason, I am justified in stating that everything which follows logic based on posits assumed as being true, is a belief.

Well, you're wrong. None of that allows you to make any real life decision, especially when you deny that real life exists.

You are horrifically confused, I think, because you are still pursuing your belief that I am arguing solipism. For the umpteenth time, I am not arguing a philosophical solipism here. It is a scientifically testable statement (stated in post #185) and I am testing it out with every counter argument, and thus far, it has tested out very well indeed.

Who said reality's an illusion?

If it's not objective, then it's an illusion. You can't have your cake and eat it too, no matter how much you want to.

This depends entirely on what you mean by 'objective’ (and illusion) and you have thus far, not stated what you mean by this. In the light of this missing statement, I have proceeded by assuming you mean a common dictionary definition of 'objective'. Did I guess correctly?

I stated what I mean by 'objective reality' .. this is what science produces at the completion of its objective tests. I think we both agree that something objective is not an illusion .. but this is not relevant to what I am saying. You've imagined that this is what I have said, I think, because you've decided I'm arguing philosophical solipism and I'm not ... I haven't been presenting anything along those lines at all ... its a scientifically testable statement!

You seem to refuse to look at what I've said and therefore whilst this continues, I choose to discontinue this sub-conversation with you .. for the sake of salvaging the main topic of this thread (and for the sake of salvaging all our collective sanities, I think?)

 

[smartcooky]

Could a mod PLEASE split off the pointless bickering about philosophy into a thread of its own!!

 

[smartcooky]

Interesting article here on space.com that addresses many of the issues surrounding habitability of Proxima b; the flares, the tidal locking, the likelihood of water etc

http://www.space.com/33915-newfound-planet-proxima-b-habitability.html

 

[SelfSim]

Could a mod PLEASE split off the pointless bickering about philosophy into a thread of its own!!

Already requested by PM .. (and welcoming it)!

PS: (And its not me who's engaging in 'pointless bickering').

 

[smartcooky]

Already requested by PM .. (and welcoming it)!

PS: (And its not me who's engaging in 'pointless bickering').

Well, I'm afraid I don't believe one word of that whole "the universe only exists because there are observers to observe it" meme, so I see any discussions of it as pointless...I see a rock, I kick it, that is proof of its existence.

(Please don't answer this post)