Mental Reality Theory vs External Reality Theory: Checkmate

_{William Murray

August 4, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

All experience is mental, regardless of whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it.
We can only ever directly interact with and experience mental experience/phenomena.
We have direct, empirical evidence mind exists and that is the only thing we can have such evidence exists, even in principle.
What we actually experience as “reality” is thus necessarily, entirely mental (again, whether or not anything extra-mental causes or informs it.)
Thus, “mental reality,” the mental world that we all live in, is not a theory; it is an undeniable fact of our existence. The only relevant question is if an additional, extra-mental “world” exists that our mental reality interacts with in any meaningful way.
Since mental reality is an experiential and logical fact, it does not have to be supported by argument or evidence any more than “I exist” needs to be supported.
The proposed existence of extra-mental phenomena that interacts meaningfully with mind cannot be empirically experienced as such. Thus, this proposition requires rational argument and/or evidence to support it.
All evidence that is gathered can only be experienced as mental phenomena and thus is necessarily congruent with mental reality theory, otherwise it could not be experienced mentally (if it can be experienced mentally, it necessarily can be generated mentally.)
All rational arguments for the existence of an external physical world originate and operate entirely within mind and strictly obey the rules and principles of mind.
As per #’s 1, 8 & 9, such argument can only ever be about mental experience using mental capacities, following mental rules in making any argument, reaching a conclusion contained entirely within mind.
Given all the above, there can never be, even in principle, evidence gathered or rational argument presented to support the existence of extra-mental reality that can distinguish it from mental reality.
Thus, belief in an extra-mental reality is necessarily irrational because (1) it cannot be directly experienced, (2) no evidence can be gathered that can distinguish it from mental reality, and (3) no rational argument can be levied in support of it that does not innately rely upon that supposed “external world” being entirely consonant with, indeed subordinate to, the entirely mental nature of logical principles and processes.

Belief in any kind of extra-mental world is unsupportable, unwarranted, unnecessary, without even the potential for evidence, and thus entirely irrational. In effect, the “external, physical world” perspective can only ever be an irrational belief in an imaginary world – or perhaps more appropriately, a delusion.

8.4.20 10:05 am Edited for clarity: last paragraph.

Comments

BTW, just for the record, ERT is a very, very useful and practical model. I've said that several times. ERT is the basis for most language (okay, mr. picky, most language in my personal experience) and understandable syntax. Should I invent an entirely new language to discuss this with "what appears to be other people in my personal experience?"William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PST}

It says nonsenically that we experience experience. The rest of the argumentation is simalarly shoddy. I move that we require people to define words the same as their meaning in common discourse, or if different, than to make known it is different, and explain the difference. Because otherwise it all just becomes a total mess.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PST}

Should I phrase everything I write in the following format: "I experience what appears to me to be ...?" To satisfy "what appears to me to be other people in my personal experience holding me accountable for syntactic fidelity to MRT" to demonstrate that I "really" believe it to be true," even when I never claimed or made an argument that it is "true" in terms of all of what actually exists? Really?William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PST}

Origenes @60, ROFL. Please read what I wrote @59 prior to your #60. Please keep in mind that I write from different perspectives in different contexts because MRT is difficult to understand. If you wish to take the KF route and decree what I meant when I said a certain thing a certain way, or assume you know enough about MRT to criticize it or how I am explaining it, fine. But, didn't you say you were interested in understanding it? Then ask questions. Do you not understand why I would say something the way I did? Then ask. My explanations about MRT would be incomprehensible to people embedded in ERT if I wrote from an MRT perspective. To have a conversation with someone who speaks a different language, one of us has to know the other person's language. I know ERT language. I'm doing the best I can, but it is often the case that I'm trying to explain something that has no ERT-relatable concept, and it requires the ERT people to make an effort to understand, not pick it apart from their ERT perspective.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PST}

Ram
Ram: Why is that a “problem?”
WJ Murray rejects solipsism (see e.g. post #2). But when I am correct about my claim [his arguments against the existence of an external physical world are equally valid as arguments against the existence of other minds], then WJM refutes his own rejection of solipsism. It seems to me that, in the OP, WJM attempts to argue from a "we" viewpoint which is not available to him or anyone else. Summarizing, he argues that "we" live in "a" mental reality, when in fact it is "I live in my mental reality". That we have to argue from an "I" perspective instead of a "we" perspective is certainly not something WJM is not aware of. Here are some quotes from another thread:
WJM: You cannot escape the prison of your own personal, conscious experience

WJM: (...) he is entirely within his mental experience, with no access to anything beyond that even in principle,(...)
Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PST}

Origenes said:
If your arguments are valid, solipsism is true.
My argument is not that my individual perspective is the only one in existence, just as my argument is not that an external, material world does not exist. My argument is not about what does not exist (other than things like "square circles.") My argument is that it does not add anything of value or relevance to assert that "the external (of mind) material world" actually exists. It's an entirely unnecessary, hypothetical whole extra domain of existence. Solipsism is necessarily a claim that other conscious perspectives do not exist. There's no way to successfully argue or evidence a claim that solipsism is true or not true, just as no one can successfully argue or evidence that there is or is not an actual external material world independent of mind. So, if my arguments are valid, they do not prove solipsism true. Nobody can do that, just as nobody can prove it false. Just as I cannot prove there is no material world external and independent of mind, nor can I prove it exists. My MRT is not about asserting any "truth" about the nature of all reality and existence; it's about recognizing the inherent, inescapable, fundamental aspects of my sentient experience and building a practical, Occam-efficient and functional theoretical model from that.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PST}

WJMurray:
That said, under MRT, all possible individual, conscious perspectives exist. The idea that I am the only individual perspective that exists is nonsensical.
You say that solipsism is nonsensical, but all the arguments you offer against the existence of an external, physical world are equally valid as arguments against the existence of other minds. Allow me to rephrase a few of your arguments:
All rational arguments for the existence of an external physical world & other minds originate and operate entirely within my mind and strictly obey the rules and principles of my mind. [Italics by me — Origenes]

Given all the above, there can never be, even in principle, evidence gathered or rational argument presented to support the existence of extra-mental reality & other minds that can distinguish it from my mental reality. Thus, belief in an extra-mental reality & other minds is necessarily irrational because (1) it cannot be directly experienced by me, (2) no evidence can be gathered that can distinguish it from my mental reality, and (3) no rational argument can be levied in support of it that does not innately rely upon that supposed “external world” & other minds being entirely consonant with, indeed subordinate to, the entirely mental nature of logical principles and processes in my mind. [Italics by me — Origenes]
If your arguments are valid, solipsism is true.Origenes_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PST}

So, the researchers over at https://quantumgravityresearch.org/ are working on a theory of everything that - minus all the scientific specifics - exactly matches the MRT theory I've been talking about here.
How do you picture this? Is the ‘mental landscape’ produced by a special person? Put another way, are we all, when we interact with the ‘external world’, observing & experiencing aspects of the (independent) mental world of one special person? If not, what do you mean by “mental”? Is there something outside of persons that can be rightly named “mental”?
A "person" is a particular arrangement of meaningful information, a basically redundant phrase; information can be defined as meaning. There's no such thing as non-meaningful information. What is meaning? At the root, it is always a comparison of different experiences in the mind of an observer. One of the problems in understanding all of this is the currently vague concept of "mind." Three basic categories of mind are: 1. the self-identifying consciously aware state; 2. the subconscious, which selects and translates potential information (potential meaning) into experiences for the consciously aware state, and 3. the unconscious, which is where all potential information (meaning) exists as potential. The unconscious, which is potential information, is sort of the ocean we all are extensions of; the subconscious is like the part of the iceberg that is under the surface, and the projected top of the iceberg is our consciously aware self-identity, produced by the subconscious as it interacts with the universal "unconscious" of infinite potential. Now, to understand how a group of people are interacting in what appears to be a common, physical, interactive, consistent environment, we switch to another analogy: that of a online virtual reality game world program. We can think of this particular world, universe or "reality" as a particular program that provides very particular values of meaning as experiences. The meaningful experiences require certain comparative values. IOW, this particular program provides for particular sets of meaning. There are other programs that provide other meaningful values. Now, think of programs within programs within programs, or nested subconscious programs, providing many different meaning values even for individuals to experience even within the same "common environment" program. So, via these analogies, we can see "universal mind" as the infinite potential itself; common "realities" as particular arrangements of information into sets of meaning. Meaning begins, logically, with identifying self and other, A and B, so to speak, because there is no meaning without a self that experiences comparative values in thought. This is the fundament subject/context relationship, two necessary coexistent sides of the "meaning" coin. The self would be a loci of consciousness experiencing a particular meaning, or a particular set of meanings, or informational comparatives. "The mind" is not an individual thing; it is not "the self." Mind comprises all potentials, which are all simultaneously existent actualities, all possible meaning or all possible beings and perspectives. The "self" is a particular, self-aware aspect of infinite mind. We are all aspects of infinite mind. In his book "The Idea of The World," Bernardo Kastrup describes us as the internal multiple personalities of universal mind, interacting with each other, if that helps. The physical "world" groups of us share is like a common psychological landscape, or refer back to the virtual world program, that provides a kind of commonality and interactivity for common, basic values of meaning.William J Murray_{August 3, 2021
August
08
Aug
3
03
2021
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PST}

William J Murray said:
Yes, but “independent of individual minds” does not mean “outside of mind.”
If there are only individual minds, it does mean exactly that. For clarity, I am not arguing that this ‘reality’ has a physical nature.
None of us can experience the word “checkmate” outside of our minds.
Indeed.
The far more efficient explanation is that our minds exist in a mental landscape (…)
How do you picture this? Is the ‘mental landscape’ produced by a special person? Put another way, are we all, when we interact with the ‘external world’, observing & experiencing aspects of the (independent) mental world of one special person? If not, what do you mean by “mental”? Is there something outside of persons that can be rightly named “mental”?Origenes_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PST}

Mike @1962 said:
The existence of brains is not an assumption, it’s a (well supported) inference.
The existence of anything external to mind can never be a well-supported inference.
At any rate, there’s no pragmatic difference to me whether the experiences I perceive to have “from the outside” are actually external or not.
Wouldn't that depend on what practical capacities might be revealed under an MRT?
Your thesis doesn’t modify the inferences that are being made, automatically or rationally, of the sense data presented to me.
I don't think you quite understand all of the ramifications of MRT. I don't know how more "different" the inferences could possibly be.
What value does your view have?
I don't think you know enough about the potential ramifications of MRT to understand its value or how it could transform every aspect of life, including science; in short, it transforms individuals from victims or passive observers of their experiential "reality" into its programmers.William J Murray_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PST}

Origenes said:
There is no “shared mental experience”, all experience invariably starts with “I” and never “we.”
I'm using the term "shared mental experience" to refer to that set of phenomena which can be almost universally verified by others in our experience. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.
From the fact that we all individually experience “Checkmate” as the last word of the title, we can logically derive the existence of a reality informing the experience of each of us —— independent from our individual minds.
Yes, but "independent of individual minds" does not mean "outside of mind." None of us can experience the word "checkmate" outside of our minds. The far more efficient explanation is that our minds exist in a mental landscape interpreting (sharing) mental information. There's no need to propose an entire additional order of existence, the "non-mind" to account for everything we experience.William J Murray_{March 19, 2021
March
03
Mar
19
19
2021
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PST}

Commenting on W.J.Murray’s concept of “a shared experiential framework.”
WJM: “…. the category of shared mental experience we mistakenly refer to as ‘the external physical world.’”
As I understand it, the concept is incoherent. There is no “shared mental experience”, all experience invariably starts with “I” and never “we.”
WJM: The only relevant question is if an additional, extra-mental “world” exists that our mental reality interacts with in any meaningful way.
Again, there is no “our mental reality”. We, the participants of this discussion, all experience (or can experience) “Checkmate” as the last word in the title of this thread, however this experience is not ‘shared’. Not one of us shares his personal experience of “Checkmate” with anyone else. If my experience of “Checkmate” is part of ‘mental reality’, then it is my mental reality alone, simply because my experience is mine alone. I, like everyone else, cannot experience anything from another starting place than I — “we” included. Answering WJM’s question: From the fact that we all individually experience “Checkmate” as the last word of the title, we can logically derive the existence of a reality informing the experience of each of us —— independent from our individual minds.Origenes_{March 18, 2021
March
03
Mar
18
18
2021
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PST}

Mr. William J Murray, Are you a Kastrup-ian? :)Truthfreedom_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PST}

WJM: Until anyone can explain how a physical brain generates (causes) mental phenomena, the theory of an external world cannot even get beyond being an assumption. The existence of brains is not an assumption, it's a (well supported) inference. At any rate, there's no pragmatic difference to me whether the experiences I perceive to have "from the outside" are actually external or not. (I have no conscious awareness of the essential, conscious "I" being involved in the generation or manipulation of sense data. Brain yes, but brains and consciousness are not identical. The idea of brains is an inference. Consciousness just is and is the primary fact of my existence.) Your thesis doesn't modify the inferences that are being made, automatically or rationally, of the sense data presented to me. Same would go for solipsism (only I am conscious) or zombie theory (some people are not conscious) or "everyone is conscious" or "rocks are conscious." Etc. What value does your view have? Science still operates the same. The making of useful inferences still operates the same. The pragmatic task of taking sense data and attempting to make models that have explanatory power and can make predictions. As with solipsism and zombie theory or any other beliefs about consciousness other than my own consciousness, so far as I can tell, your view is not demonstrable nor falsifiable and has no pragmatic value. the idea of an external physical reality can only ever be a matter of irrational faith. That's also true for any beliefs about consciousness other than my own consciousness. Nothing can be done about that. But it has no practical relevance to me.mike1962_{August 11, 2020
August
08
Aug
11
11
2020
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PST}

Mike1962 @48 said:
My consciousness doesn’t generate dreams. The brain that my consciousness is attached to generates dreams. Brains are external to consciousness.
You're mixing up premises and forgetting what I've actually said. The premise is MRT - mental reality theory, not "consciousness" reality theory. Whether or not they are caused by a brain (reality external of mind), all experience - including dreams - occur in mind. They are mental experiences. Your challenge was about intentional vs unintentional experiences, as if mind is incapable of producing unexpected experiences. Since all unexpected experiences are experienced in mind, mind is obviously capable of producing them whether or not mind is the cause.
You didn’t really answer #1. I’ll re-word: what predictive success does your thesis have over the common view?f
(1) that matter doesn't exist, (2) that mind & consciousness play a crucial role in what we call "physical reality."
You have provided no evidence that there is an unconscious part of my consciousness that is generating experiences in my consciousness, or that there is even such as thing as an unconsciousness part of my consciousness. (It’s a contradictions anyway.)
The existence of the unconscious and the subconscious as part of mind has long been established as fact. It is mental reality theory, not "consciously aware reality theory." You seem to have gone off on a "consciously aware" sidetrack that is causing you some confusion. There is an aspect of the mind that is consciously aware and aspects of the mind which are not (under MRT theory.)
You view asserts that a lot of things are going on in my consciousness that are not directly experienced.
You are apparently misunderstanding and conflating some terms as I pointed out above.
If you’re saying that our understanding of a world external to consciousness is based on human reason, I agree. But then again, your putative view of reality is equally dependent on human reason. Consciousness first, reason second, and all inferences third. So far, I’ve seen no reason why your thesis explains my experience any better than the common view, or even as well, or that it has superior predictive power. There is no “checkmate.”
It explains it better in that it doesn't require a entire, unnecessary domain of reality (external physical world) or an interface between the two that can transmit between domains successfully and accurately. Also, it is the only theory that predicts what we have recently uncovered via quantum physics research - lack of physical matter, impact of observation on phenomena, absence of local reality, reverse-causation, etc. Until anyone can explain how a physical brain generates (causes) mental phenomena, the theory of an external world cannot even get beyond being an assumption. Until anyone can directly experience an external world, the idea of an external physical reality can only ever be a matter of irrational faith.William J Murray_{August 11, 2020
August
08
Aug
11
11
2020
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PST}

To continue, Thus, belief in an extra-mental reality is necessarily irrational because (1) it cannot be directly experienced, You view asserts that a lot of things are going on in my consciousness that are not directly experienced. (2) no evidence can be gathered that can distinguish it from mental reality, You have provided no evidence that there is an unconscious part of my consciousness that is generating experiences in my consciousness, or that there is even such as thing as an unconsciousness part of my consciousness. (It's a contradictions anyway.) (3) no rational argument can be levied in support of it that does not innately rely upon that supposed “external world” being entirely consonant with, indeed subordinate to, the entirely mental nature of logical principles and processes. If you're saying that our understanding of a world external to consciousness is based on human reason, I agree. But then again, your putative view of reality is equally dependent on human reason. Consciousness first, reason second, and all inferences third. So far, I've seen no reason why your thesis explains my experience any better than the common view, or even as well, or that it has superior predictive power. There is no "checkmate."mike1962_{August 11, 2020
August
08
Aug
11
11
2020
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PST}

WJM: We experience unexpected things in dreams. This demonstrates that mind can generate unintentional aspects of our experience. My consciousness doesn't generate dreams. The brain that my consciousness is attached to generates dreams. Brains are external to consciousness. You didn't really answer #1. I'll re-word: what predictive success does your thesis have over the common view? You do, inasmuch as your particular psychological perspective allows. What's governing the "allowing"? I don’t know what #3 means. 3) Why don’t I have conscious experience of my consciousness doing things that I clearly have no experience of doing? Apparently you claim that my consciousness is doing things that my consciousness is not aware of doing. That it has intent and makes choices even though my consciousness is not aware of it. Explain how this works. We are different psychological perspectives that consciousness is experiencing through. IOW, it is like a dream universal mind is having and inhabiting every person in the dream simultaneously as an individual, unique psychological perspective. In this scenario, you and I aren’t actually external of each other, we are internal to each other and whatever world we both seem to be experiencing external to our dream avatars is common to both of us only inasmuch as we have shared psychological aspects How do you prove any of this?mike1962_{August 11, 2020
August
08
Aug
11
11
2020
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PST}

MIke @45 said:
Prove it. Brain yes. But brain is not identical with consciousness, as can be demonstrated to me by my own experiments.
We experience unexpected things in dreams. This demonstrates that mind can generate unintentional aspects of our experience.
1) what predictions does your hypothesis make that make it superior to the standard hypothesis of an external reality?
Depends on what you mean by "superior". MRT predicts that consciousness is fundamental and that matter doesn't actually exist, meaning that under MRT science wouldn't have been chasing the rainbow of materialism like non-MRT theory has for hundreds of years, and we would have probably begun with consciousness/informational theory instead of just getting around to it now after exhausting all other options.
If there is no external reality, and my consciousness is just “doing it all” (to summarize your view as best as I can understand it), why don’t I have direct awareness of your consciousness?
You do, inasmuch as your particular psychological perspective allows. Otherwise, you would not be experiencing me and having a discussion with me at alld, in any way. You and everyone else has just been trained to think that what you are experiencing is something else. I don't know what #3 means.
4) Why aren’t we having the same experience? What explains the disjoint? Why aren’t you and I “one?”
We are different psychological perspectives that consciousness is experiencing through. IOW, it is like a dream universal mind is having and inhabiting every person in the dream simultaneously as an individual, unique psychological perspective. In this scenario, you and I aren't actually external of each other, we are internal to each other and whatever world we both seem to be experiencing external to our dream avatars is common to both of us only inasmuch as we have shared psychological aspectsWilliam J Murray_{August 11, 2020
August
08
Aug
11
11
2020
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PST}

... to continue, if you accept that my consciousness is different than yours, i.e, we are separate identities, then at very least, something exists external from you. Namely, me.mike1962_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PST}

Non-intentional aspects of our experience are generated by mind Prove it. Brain yes. But brain is not identical with consciousness, as can be demonstrated to me by my own experiments. Nothing you've said is persuasive to me at all. But I'll ask this: 1) what predictions does your hypothesis make that make it superior to the standard hypothesis of an external reality? 2) If there is no external reality, and my consciousness is just "doing it all" (to summarize your view as best as I can understand it), why don't I have direct awareness of your consciousness? 3) Why don't I have conscious experience of my consciousness doing things that I clearly have no experience of doing? 4) Why aren't we having the same experience? What explains the disjoint? Why aren't you and I "one?"mike1962_{August 10, 2020
August
08
Aug
10
10
2020
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PST}

Mike1962:
How does your hypothesis (based on your definitions) account for the difference between intentionally generated consciousness experience and non-intentionally generated consciousness experience?
I'm not sure what you mean by "account for." Non-intentional aspects of our experience are generated by mind - this is a trivial fact of our experience. We generally don't intend to experience whatever occurs in a dream, for examples.
What does “in our heads” mean?
It means "in mind."
You seem to be conflating consciousness (which is primary) with brains (which are not primary.) Our ideas of brains are rational conclusions, not identical with primary conscious experience itself. (Experimentally, we know that the entire brain is not directly related to conscious experience.)
I don't think you understand some basic implications of MRT. Under MRT, "brains" and "bodies" only exist as mental phenomena, not as actual material objects.
At any rate, you need to account for the difference between intentional acts of consciousness that change conscious experience and non-intentional acts of consciousness (whatever that might mean) that lead to change in conscience experience, as per my garage/car example.
I'm not sure why you think I need to explain something that we already know can occur entirely within mind by first-hand experience: dreams. Things often occur without our conscious intention in dreams that change the state of our consciousness (like causing fear or sadness) in the dream.
What does it mean to say that a conscious entity can act, i.e, be a first cause in a chain of causality, but not do it intentionally? And not know that it’s doing it with non-intention? This seems like nonsense to me.
There is much more to mind that just intention. I think that may be where the problem is. MRT is mental reality theory - a theory about mind, not just intention. Conscious intention represents a very small fraction of what we know goes on in mind; for example, we know that a lot of the drivers of our behavior, thoughts and emotions are subconscious programs and patterns.William J Murray_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PST}

WJM @37: Whether or not you experience intentionality [sic] with regards to an experience is irrelevant in defining whether it is “internal” and “external” even under the external-world paradigm. How does your hypothesis (based on your definitions) account for the difference between intentionally generated consciousness experience and non-intentionally generated consciousness experience? Internal thought, feelings, mental imagery can occur in our heads both intentionally and non-intentionally, so “intentionality” is not a dividing line between internal and external. What does "in our heads" mean? You seem to be conflating consciousness (which is primary) with brains (which are not primary.) Our ideas of brains are rational conclusions, not identical with primary conscious experience itself. (Experimentally, we know that the entire brain is not directly related to conscious experience.) At any rate, you need to account for the difference between intentional acts of consciousness that change conscious experience and non-intentional acts of consciousness (whatever that might mean) that lead to change in conscience experience, as per my garage/car example. Just saying "there's no difference" is not an explanation. That's merely a denial of the problem. What does it mean to say that a conscious entity can act, i.e, be a first cause in a chain of causality, but not do it intentionally? And not know that it's doing it with non-intention? This seems like nonsense to me.mike1962_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PST}

BA77, It seems to me that your objection may be that MRT is necessarily, entirely constrained to deduction from an a priori first principle premise. That of course is not true any more than it is true of the ERT theory. You aren't limited to abstract deductions because in both cases you have the world of experience to observe, make predictions from and test. However, at least one aspect of your objection is that and that such a process could not have generated some of the same useful theories that the premise of ERT has generated. I think that is a very reasonable objection. For example, if we never assumed that any actual "matter" existed, would we ever have bothered going down that long experimental process, leading to the smashing of atoms? I don't know. It doesn't seem likely that MRT-based science would have historically progressed along that path. My position is not that ERT is useless; it's obviously very useful, but then so have been many, many theories that were ultimately shown to be incorrect or misconceptions by new information that provided a path to a new perspective. Let's look at it this way; ERT is based on an original philosophical premise in exactly the same way MRT is - it's just a different premise. ERT has historically been bound to abstract deduction from that premise in assuming that we are examining a physical, external world. That deductive-from-premise framework guided how we thought about conducting tests and how we interpreted the results. It has confined what kind of theories we came up with to model that information. One of the deep, unrecognized-as-deductive conceptualizations that persisted until very recently was that observation was a passive activity in terms of what was observed. It was assumed (again, largely without even realizing it as a purely abstract, deductive derivative of the premise) that what we were observing had fundamental, innate characteristics that we were passively, independently observing. Similar purely conceptual, perhaps unrecognized-as-such constraints would have certainly informed scientific progress under MRT because there would have been such natural deductive assumptions in place there as well. For example, we probably would have assumed observation and consciousness was fundamental to what what we were observing in the first place. Conscious observation would likely never have been assumed to be passive. So, I think it is quite safe to assume that MRT would not have gone the same path, nor developed many of the same models that ERT developed. That much is all but certain. What can only be largely a matter of speculation is whether or not MRT would have produced, in significant ways, better or worse results. I think even that comparison, if we could know it, might be more a matter of perspective and how one defined "better." Let's assume arguendo that ERT was the better framework for historical scientific progression. That doesn't change the fact that ERT has been rendered unsustainable due to relatively recent and repeatedly tested evidence derived from quantum theory research. The idea of "local reality" has been demonstrated as a fiction. The independent, passive nature of observation has been shown false. Consciousness has been shown to be inextricably fundamental to observational results (measuring.) All that was conceptually essential to assume under ERT scientific process has been unequivocally demonstrated false. Like evolutionary theory, that emperor has been stripped bare for all who are willing to see. The only option that is left is some form of MRT. Yes, it was a long (and perhaps necessary) road to gather the evidence and develop the concepts and language necessary to understand and articulate it, but the current evidence and the necessary implications of that evidence is conclusive. Many still cling to the corpse of evolution in the faithful hope it can be resurrected, holding by faith that it is not really dead. Many will continue to cling to ERT in the hope that it can be salvaged. In the same way Darwinist say "we don't know how; we don't even have a theory how; but surely there was a "how" and we just haven't found it yet," ERT adherents will say "we may not know what it is, or how it produces mental experience, and we may have no means to directly gather evidence of it, but surely an extra-mental domain exists." It is interesting to me that people current operating under more traditional theistic perspectives resist MRT as strongly as materialists, when MRT doesn't contradict any specific tenets of their theology and is substantively supportive. It provides a framework that eliminates problematic issues that existed under the dominant Theological-ERT perspectives.William J Murray_{August 9, 2020
August
08
Aug
9
09
2020
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PST}

WJM, although your reference gives a nod to inductive reasoning,
"Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.",,,
your reference still gives inductive reasoning short rift. The major shift in reasoning from a more or less purely ‘top down’ deductive form of reasoning of the ancient Greeks to this new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning of the Medieval Christians represented nothing less than the birth of the scientific method itself.
Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg
This new form of inductive reasoning, which led to the birth of the scientific method itself, apparently took a while to take hold in Medieval Christian Europe but this new form of reasoning was eventually, and famously, elucidated and championed by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book that was entitled Novum Organum. Which is translated as ‘New Method’. In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work Organon, which was Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, Organum was basically Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.
The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016 Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation
And thus in his book Novum Organum, Bacon was actually championing a new method of inductive reasoning, where repeated experimentation played the central role in one’s reasoning, over and above Aristotle’s deductive reasoning, where reasoning from first principles played the primary role, and which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for approx. 2000 years at that time.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE
And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, educated guesses that follow from Aristotle’s deductive reasoning.
Francis Bacon, 1561–1626 Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water. https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html
Thus again, for you to say that "my answer would be: MRT dictates that the only kind of universe that God could create is this one" is for you to, basically, claim that you can deduce the 'form' and/or structure of the universe from first principles, and is for you to champion the deductive method of reasoning that the ancient Greeks used and that prevented the rise of modern science. And again, to repeat, I also note that in order for you to prove your claim that 'the only kind of universe that God could create is this one", and for you to prove that this would not undermine modern science, then it would be necessary for you to deduce, at the very least, the amplituhedron, special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, from first principles. Yet I don’t see how you can possibly accomplish this and successfully deduce those theories solely from first principles. i.e. You will always be dependent on experimenting on the ‘external’ world to see if it in fact matches your ‘guess’ for how God might have created this world. In short, and to repeat, you, with your model, have basically regressed back to the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks in which inductive reasoning played a very negligible role. A form of logic that prevented the rise of modern science in the ancient Greek cultures..bornagain77_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PST}

Ironically, it occurs to me that once one understand the self-evidently true nature of statement #1 in the OP, one understands that the only premise that can possibly generate meaningful deductions and conclusions is MRT. Once one is aware of the self-evidently true nature of the statement: "All experience occurs in mind," how would one even begin to develop a rational, supportable theory of an extra-mental domain? It's a non-starter, a nonsensical idea to begin with.William J Murray_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PST}

BA77 @38: I must not be understanding the point you are trying to make. Possibly because I'm not that familiar with the Greeks and their philosophical limitations.
Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion, according to California State University. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations," said Dr. Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, a researcher and professor emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. ... Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data. This is called inductive logic, according to Utah State University. ... Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.
If you are saying there is no way to get to deductive reasoning under the premise, or to use it to support for the premise of MRT, I would say the opposite: there is no way to get deductive reasoning support for the premise of ERT. The theory of MRT is based on this direct, inescapable observation: all experience occurs in mind. That is inductive reasoning - forming a theory based on observation. Science employs inductive reasoning this way - to form a hypothesis from observation. Science then uses deductive reasoning from the premised hypothetical to reach a conclusion, then tests that conclusion via observations. The deductions I made from the premise reach an inexorable conclusion that doesn't even require testing because they are necessarily true given the inescapable observational fact I began with: if anything extra-mental exists, it is absolutely beyond our capacity to test or measure. Perhaps you are saying that, at this point, deductive reasoning ends or is a non-starter, or there is no reason to pursue it. I don't understand any of those. Deductive reasoning was an essential part of the process in reaching that conclusion, and it certainly doesn't mean deductive reasoning is at an end at that point. It doesn't mean the normal scientific process of using induction and deduction is any different under MRT when observing phenomena, inductively generating a hypothesis about that phenomena, and deductively reaching conclusions that can then be tested. It just means our understanding of what we are applying the scientific method to has changed - just as it changed after the advent of quantum theory. So, again, I don't understand your objection.William J Murray_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PST}

WJM, is post 32 you state, "my answer would be: MRT dictates that the only kind of universe that God could create is this one."
I’m not sure how this works or that the latter necessarily follows the prior. My understanding of “contingent” in this regard is that a certain circumstance was required in order for our particular universe to exist out of “all possibilities”. It doesn’t necessarily follow from that that this contingency must be resolved by “God’s choice,” nor does it seem to me that there is any Biblical requirement that this be a choice God made (choosing from many possibly created universes.) It just means that the designed nature of our universe requires postulating that which would generate it and not any other kind of universe; why there would be the fine-tuning of this world and not a world that is not fine-tuned. You and others resolve this contingency dilemma by asserting that it was God’s choice to create this particular world because God wanted certain features in it, including intelligent life capable of reason and scientific investigation (both of which require immense contextual support to comprehend and be useful.) From my understanding though, contingency doesn’t require the explanation by choice; it just requires an explanation: what condition would account for this particular universe’s existence and not any other? If I am correct in my understanding of what “contingent” means here, my answer would be: MRT dictates that the only kind of universe that God could create is this one.
Since you hold that "the only kind of universe that God could create is this one" and that God had no choice in the matter, then you are necessarily back to arguing from first principles. i.e. back to arguing via deductive logic. Which, I remind, as I pointed out in post 15, is exactly what prevented the ancient Greeks from ever making the crucial breakthrough into experimental science, i.e. into inductive logic.
Is Christianity Unscientific? – Peter S. Williams “Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible. But the Greeks held that this order is necessary and that one can therefore deduce its structure from first principles. Only biblical thought held that God created both form and matter, meaning that the world did not have to be as it is and that the details of its order can be discovered only by observation.” http://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/is-christianity-unscientific ,,,,In short WJM, you, like present day Darwinists and theoretical physicists, have regressed back to the ‘deductive logic’ of the ancient greeks, who argued deductively from first principles, and have forsaken the inductive logic that was championed by Francis Bacon and which lays at the foundation of modern science itself. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/asked-at-areo-magazine-did-the-catholic-church-give-birth-to-science/#comment-703354
WJM, I also note that in order for you to prove your claim that this is the only kind of universe that God could create is this one, and for you to prove that this would not undermine modern science, then it would be necessary for you to deduce, at the very least, the amplituhedron, special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, from first principles. Yet I don't see how you can possibly accomplish this and successfully deduce those theories solely from first principles. i.e. You will always be dependent on experimenting on the 'external' world to see if it in fact matches your 'guess' for how God might have created this world. In short, and to repeat, you, with your model, have regressed back to the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks. A form of logic that prevented the rise of modern science.bornagain77_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PST}

Mike1962 @36: If something occurred external of your consciousness, by definition you would not be aware of it because it wouldn't be in your consciousness. Whether or not you experience intentionality with regards to an experience is irrelevant in defining whether it is "internal" and "external" even under the external-world paradigm. Internal thought, feelings, mental imagery can occur in our heads both intentionally and non-intentionally, so "intentionality" is not a dividing line between internal and external.William J Murray_{August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PST}

WJM: 12: Thus, belief in an extra-mental reality is necessarily irrational because (1) it cannot be directly experienced, (2) no evidence can be gathered that can distinguish it from mental reality, Hmm, well, I know I exist. I know I consciously experience a great deal of things that I do not intentionally cause by my will. How can there not be external triggers, causing me to experience things, if I'm not intentionally causing the effect that I experience? When I'm sitting in my garage and watch a car drive by, I have no mental evidence or experience that I am causing the events that I am witnessing. What is the cause? And how is this not "external to my consciousness", by definition? Now, we can debate about the nature of the external causes (is it "real", is it a virtual reality, etc), but whatever are the causes, they are external to my consciousness.mike1962_{August 7, 2020
August
08
Aug
7
07
2020
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PST}

And, let me end with a special, but relevant quote I think you may enjoy: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." - Luke 17:21 KJV.William J Murray_{August 6, 2020
August
08
Aug
6
06
2020
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply